Albert Einstein is often quoted, perhaps incorrectly, as saying that if he had twenty days to solve a problem, he would spend nineteen defining it. Innovation is particularly difficult because it often remains undefined. Treating it as one uniform activity, as though every innovation were the same, leaves many expensive programs going nowhere.

How should we approach it? Should we hand it to people in lab coats, an external partner or a specialist, or outsource it? Before deciding, we need a clear framework for defining problems and approaches likely to produce innovative solutions.

Defining an innovation management approach starts with a better understanding of the problem. Greg suggests two basic questions that can help.

How Well Is the Problem Defined? When Steve Jobs set out to build the iPod, he framed the problem as “1,000 songs in my pocket.” That simple phrase defined both the technical specifications and overall direction. Other problems, such as creating a viable alternative to fossil fuels, are harder to define. Your innovation strategy must adapt to how clearly the problem can be framed.

Who Is Best Positioned to Solve the Problem? Once Jobs defined the iPod problem, it was clear that he needed a disk drive manufacturer able to meet his specifications. The path is not always so clear. Asking these questions quickly reveals whether there is a straightforward answer.

After asking the questions that frame the problem, we can determine which approach to innovation makes the most sense, as shown in the following matrix:

Basic Research: When the aim is to discover something truly new, neither the problem nor the field is well defined. Some organizations invest in large research divisions; others keep abreast of discoveries through research grants and academic partnerships. These approaches are often combined into a comprehensive program.

Although most basic research takes place in academic institutions, companies can also excel at it. The article cites IBM’s 1993 quantum teleportation research and, at the time of publication, anticipated commercial applications after 2020. Basic research requires a long-term horizon to pay off and should be combined with other methods, internally or through partnerships.

Breakthrough Innovation: Sometimes a well-defined problem leaves an organization or entire field stuck. Determining DNA’s structure was a clear problem, but even talented chemists struggled to solve it. Such problems are often solved by combining different fields: Watson and Crick combined insights from chemistry, biology and X-ray crystallography.

Many companies turn to open innovation platforms such as InnoCentive, allowing outside experts to solve problems that have stalled internal teams. Procter & Gamble built its own platform, Connect + Develop which lets the company draw on expertise from many fields around the world.

Sustaining Innovation: Every technology needs improvement. Cameras gain pixels, computers become more powerful and household products acquire “new and improved” formulas. Large organizations tend to excel at this kind of innovation because conventional R&D laboratories and outsourcing suit it well.

Apple, for example, excels at sustaining innovation. It did not invent the digital music player, smartphone or tablet, but improved earlier designs so significantly that they seemed entirely new. Similarly, Toyota builds cars like other manufacturers, but better.

Both companies excel at adapting breakthrough innovations to existing markets. Strong sustaining innovators are also strong marketers: they see needs others miss.

Disruptive Innovation: Disruptive innovation is more challenging. It targets light users or noncustomers and may require a new business model because its value is not immediately obvious. While Apple’s new products attract attention, Google often introduces products people initially struggle to understand or monetize. From maps to self-driving vehicles, they meet needs we did not know we had. The article cites 3M, pioneer of adhesive tape and Post-it notes, as earning up to 30% of revenue from products introduced within the preceding five years.

Both companies use versions of the 15%/20% rule, allocating a portion of employees’ time to projects outside their usual work. Other companies create innovation laboratories to test and learn without excessive risk. A venture capital approach, making small investments in startups, can also succeed.

Although focus matters, companies should not limit themselves to one quadrant. Apple excels at sustaining innovation, but iTunes was a major disruptive innovation. Google is known for disruption, yet invests substantial resources in improving existing products.

Develop an effective innovation portfolio with a primary focus that also explores other quadrants and creates synergies among approaches. Innovation is, above all, about combining ideas.

Original Article in English:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/02/before_you_innovate_ask_the_ri.html

Image Credit: Copyright (c) www.123rf.com