A few posts ago, I talked about how an organization's development and innovation processes should be different, as they have different goals.  I then talked about how differences in perceptual skills are better determinants of successfull innovators than the organizational discipline in which they reside.  At this point it may be useful to step back and look at the fundamental differences in the thought processes that enable people to be successful in the development and innovation processes.

As the development process requires a high degree of reliability and certainty, thought processes that involve inductive and deductive reasoning are most appropriate.  Inductive reasoning determines rules by moving from specifics to generalities.  For example, if every time we touch ice it is cold, we can then make a rule that all ice is cold.  Deductive reasoning determines conclusions by moving from generalities to specifics.  For example, if we know that all ice is cold and we are told that an object is made of ice, we conclude that the object will be cold.  Both of these types of reasoning work hand-in--hand, and can be proven or disproven by observing or experiencing additional examples.

In contrast, the innovation process requires the creation of highly plausible hypotheses and solutions that are not readily observed or experienced - at least not in the current context.  The thought processes most applicable in these circumstances are abductive and adductive reasoning.  These types of reasoning require that intuition and creativity are applied to observed and experienced facts.

Abductive reasoning determines plausible hypotheses.  For example, abductive reasoning would be used to determine hypotheses for why ice would be cold.  Further investigation beyond external observation would be required to prove or disprove each hypothesis proposed.  Adductive reasoning determines plausible solutions.  For example, depending upon why ice is cold, we may develop new solutions for how to make ice.  Each solution would need to be tested through experimentation.  Both of these types of reasoning also work hand-in-hand.

We can see how different types of reasoning are applicable in different situations.  We can also see how different types of reasoning are important in any functional discipline in an organization.  Both innovation and development groups need multidisciplinary teams. When selecting people to work in either group, it's much more important to assess how they approach identifying and solving problems than which discipline they come from. 

I've been reading several articles lately that discuss different processes for innovation.  They typically center around a few main themes; ethnography, rapid prototyping, open innovation, and other ways to connect market insight with opportunities for new offerings.  And yet when I talk with clients who have tried similar processes, I get mixed responses regarding the results.  Most can point to isolated events that would not have occurred without the new process, but none can say that these processes have increased their ability to consistently connect opportunities for new offerings with the market they are intended to satisfy. 

I'm actually not surprised when I hear this.  Over the past few years I've come to the realization that there is a big, pink elephant in the room regarding innovation processes.  That pink elephant is the fact that some people are better at making non-linear connections between disparate disciplines than others.  Why does this typically go unsaid?  Because the perceptual skills required to make these connections are difficult to identify, define, and measure, let alone codify into a bullet-point job description.  However, everyone perceives the world differently, and better descriptions of process will not turn a linear thinker into a non-linear thinker.

Think of it this way.  No one would argue that everyone has different levels of physical ability.  I can swim, but if I was standing next to Michael Phelps, we wouldn't need to be near the water for anyone to guess who could swim faster.  That's because physical differences are observable, definable, and we can easily measure the results of the output.  Differences in perceptual skill are invisible, but that doesn't mean they aren't real.  The problem is that most organizational processes have been designed to take the human variable out of the system.  In terms of development and other day-to-day processes I think this is a good thing.  But it just doesn't work for developing breakthrough innovations that will connect with the market.

In the next few posts, I'll be reviewing best practices I've developed to identify the right types of perceptual skills for innovation, and connecting them to different disciplinary skills.  For now, start noticing how different people in your company perceive the world around them.  You may be surprised at what you see when you really start looking.

Most organizations have mastered the ability to deliver their products and services reliably and efficiently.  Remember the 99% lists?  As consumers we've come to expect excellence, and companies that don't deliver above and beyond this excellence won't last very long.

Organizations themselves also take these skills for granted.  I'm often reminded of this when I'm working with clients to develop innovation processes.  Many of the people within companies become frustrated that the organization's capacity for change is so low. 

At this point, it's helpful to step back and really think about what your development and manufacturing processes are expected to do.  If you work in a business where 99.9% isn't good enough (most organizations), then expecting the current process to accomodate breakthrough innovation is just not realistic.  Alternatively, expecting that the outcome of the innovation process will be products and services that fit neatly into existing systems is equally unrealistic.  Innovation efforts that implicitly carry either of these expectations will most certainly fail.

Innovation processes require room for experimentation, trial and error, incorporating unpredictable human elements, and all the other things that would bring current development and manufacturing processes to a screeching halt.  It's far better to separate each process, and let each one be what it needs to be.  Your innovation process should result in the identification of new opportunities that can be delivered in multiple ways.  Some may be able to work with slight modifications to existing processes.  Others may require completely new processes. 

Your innovation process should deliver market relevant opportunities.  Your development and manufacturing processes should deliver offerings to the market reliably and efficiently.  The real organizational challenge is managing expectations within the organization for what each process should deliver, and establishing the right connections between them (more on how to do that later).  But don't expect one to deliver on the expectations of the other.

We've changed the name and look of the blog to better integrate with my consulting practice.  The new name for the practice is Synaptics Group, Inc., and the blog will now be called the Synaptics Blog.   These changes should better reflect the focus of the work, which is on Market Relevant Innovation. 

What's Market Relevant Innovation?  Think of it this way.  Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, nor did they invent e-commerce.  But they did develop the most market relevant way to access media, through the development of the iPod, iTunes, and the business model that connects them.

This is just the first step in connecting the two sites.  The design will probably go through another iteration or two in the next few months, and I'll continue to post the latest thinking on Market Relevant Innovation!