Tagged: innovation Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 00:19:11 on 2016/09/22 Permalink
    Tags: AARON RENN, , , , , , , , , environment, innovation, innovation comes from the edges, james clear, John Carpenter, john hagel, Katy Lynch, metaphors, pearls of wisdom, peter thiel, , Roosevelt University, Scott Kleinberg, Shia Kapos, silicon valley, , stategy, strategy, , texas, the edge of innovation, thiel   

    Dear Chicago: Embrace the Edge 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Dear Chicago: Embrace the Edge

    Last week, Peter Thiel casually and brazenly denigrated Chicago, hyping Silicon Valley while speaking at a Roosevelt University Chicago event:

    In Thiel’s own words: “If you are a very talented person, you have a choice: You either go to New York or you go to Silicon Valley.”

    Chicago has reacted with numerous self-depricating or defensive articles.

    Buck up, Chicago.

    According to the IRS, Five MILLION people have left California in the past decade. The exodus equates to a whopping net loss of $26 billion in annual income for the state. The majority headed to one of five states: Texas, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Washington.

    The reason for the California exodus is no secret: exorbitant housing costs, a housing shortage, the second lowest home ownership rates in the country, high taxes, statewide unemployment higher than the national average, low wages, fiscal instability, systemic gender/race discrimination, increasing business regulation, not to mention a dearth of companies solving *actual* problems, severe droughts, a water shortage, earthquakes, dry lightning, and accelerating ozone pollution levels (also among the highest in the country).

    Peter Thiel paints a rosy picture of Silicon Valley. Meanwhile Silicon Valley’s restaurant industry is literally starving.

    Location is everything. Research has proven that environment has a surprisingly strong influence on success. Unless you fit the Silicon Valley’s very narrow niche “mold for success” (read: white, educated, technology-savvy males under age 40 — age 50 if you are lucky enough to be a VC — with money and family connections), look elsewhere for opportunity. The folks in Silicon Valley are not more talented; they’re merely more insular, provincial, protectionist, and elitist with regard to membership in their private club.

    Remember folks: DIVERSITY DRIVES INNOVATION and INNOVATION COMES FROM THE EDGES. In the words of brainy entrepreneur James Clear: “Life is a game; if you want better results over a sustained period of time, play the game in an environment that favors you.” James also wisely once advised: “worry not — aim for the subtle art of not giving a f*ck.”

    Embrace the edge, Chicago. Don’t kow-tow to Silicon Valley pundits and bullies. You’re better than that.

     
  • feedwordpress 14:34:08 on 2015/12/15 Permalink
    Tags: antitrust, , bumble bee, bumble bee foods, , business integration, , , chicken of the sea, cooley, , DOJ, flakeboard, gun-jumping, Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, howard morse, HSR Act, innovation, litigation, , , mergers and acquisitions, monopoly power, Rockefeller, tuna   

    AntiTrust Law and M&A Deal Value 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    AntiTrust Law and M&A Deal Value

    RE:INVENTION, inc. helps companies with pre- and post-merger (M&A) brand and business integration. The process of combining and rearranging businesses to realize merger and acquisition (M&A) deal value and materialize potential inside-out efficiencies and synergies is complex and riddled with numerous antitrust and other legal issues.

    Because of our understanding of operational integration issues and antitrust risks in M&A transactions, we’re committed to sharing solutions in a forum for your review. Our discussion today involves the antitrust litigation related to Thai Union (Chicken of the Sea) and their recently dissolved M&A deal with Bumble Bee Foods. Bumble Bee Foods offices are located just a stone’s throw away from RE:INVENTION’s HQ in downtown San Diego.

    Our interview that follows introduces Cooley LLP AntiTrust Practice Leader, Howard Morse, one of the country’s leading antitrust lawyers.

    ************************************************************************

    RE: Can you tell our readers a little bit about yourself and your background in antitrust law with respect to company mergers and acquisitions (M&A)?

    Howard Morse, Cooley

    Morse: I am a Washington, DC-based partner and chair of the antitrust practice at Cooley LLP, where we represent clients, particularly in high-tech industries – including tech, life sciences and telecom companies – as well as automotive parts and consumer product companies.

    Early in my career I spent 10 years at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), where I was a staff attorney, deputy for policy and assistant director of the Bureau of Competition, and was responsible for more than 50 merger enforcement actions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.

    For the last 15 years, I have been guiding mergers and acquisitions through the regulatory approval process at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FTC.

    RE: Can you provide a basic overview of the nature/concept of “antitrust” for our readers?

    Morse: The term “antitrust” was coined at the turn of the 20th century, as the government established laws to counter the “trusts” or holding companies of the day, such as John D. Rockefeller’s oil trust (Standard Oil) and J.P. Morgan’s steel trust (U.S. Steel), which were recognized to have gained monopoly power.

    What we call “antitrust law” and much of the rest of the world calls “competition law” restricts agreements in restraint of trade, monopolization or abuse of dominance, and mergers and acquisitions that may lessen competition.

    The goal of antitrust is to prevent conduct, including mergers and acquisitions, that is likely to lead to higher prices – or lower quality, reduced service or less innovation – to the detriment of customers and consumers. It is not, as some mistakenly believe, aimed at protecting competitors from competition.

    RE: When is a merger or acquisition likely to run into antitrust concerns?

    Morse: The government focuses its attention on mergers and acquisitions among the largest competitors in concentrated markets, say when #2 and #3 of 4 major firms in a market propose to combine.

    The key question that the government asks is will the merged firm raise prices, compared to likely prices if the merger were not to take place, either unilaterally because the merging firms’ products are close substitutes or the merged firm will dominate the market or through coordinated interaction or tacit collusion among remaining firms.

    RE: When announcing the recent abandonment of the Bumble Bee / Thai Union deal, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) declared that “that the parties knew or should have known from the get go – that the market is not functioning competitively today, and further consolidation would only make things worse.” What do you make of that specific statement from DOJ Assistant Attorney General for AntiTrust, Bill Baer?

    Morse: Public reports indicate that the DOJ has issued subpoenas and is conducting a criminal investigation into whether the ‘big three’ canned tuna producers – Bumble Bee, Chicken-of-the Sea and Starkist – fixed prices. While the DOJ has not commented specifically on that investigation, there have been a number of civil lawsuits filed since the announcement that Thai Union was suspending its offer to acquire Bumble Bee in July.

    Companies considering a merger or acquisition with a competitor in a concentrated market ought to recognize that proposed transactions and the companies’ internal documents will be carefully scrutinized by antitrust authorities. If there are suggestions of price fixing or market division in company documents, the companies may find not only that they can’t complete their proposed deal but also that they become the target of a criminal investigation, which can mean large fines and even jail time.

    RE: To wit, Del Monte Foods originally considered selling Starkist to Bumble Bee before selling to Dongwon Industries back in 2008. Pre-deal information sharing has obviously already happened – with great frequency – in the tuna industry. At this point, is any merger and acquisition (M&A) in the tuna industry bound to be riddled with antitrust issues?

    Morse: Transactions involving smaller firms in a market – even deals in which they are acquired by one of the big firms – are likely to be looked at quite differently than those combining two of the big three players.

    RE: The Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-435, known commonly as the HSR Act) guides the premerger notification and merger review process. Can you tell our readers a little bit about the Act and the waiting period?

    Morse: The HSR Act requires notification of proposed transactions that meet specified thresholds to the DOJ and FTC to allow the antitrust authorities to investigate whether they may lessen competition before they are consummated.

    Most deals are subject to an initial 30-day waiting period. If the authorities believe a thorough investigation is warranted, the reviewing agency will issue a so-called “Second Request” requiring the parties to produce additional data and documents before they can proceed with the deal.

    During FY2014, HSR filings were made for 1,663 transactions and 51 second requests were issued, in 3.2% of all transactions.

    The HSR rules are complex – much like the tax code – so firms are advised to consult with counsel but generally need to consider whether they have to make an HSR filing when they make an acquisition or will hold securities of the target company, valued over $76.3 million.

    Some transactions that firms may not even think of as M&A, such as entering into an exclusive license, may require an HSR filing if thresholds are met.

    RE: Due diligence and integration planning are vital for M&A deal success. But companies need to avoid unlawful premerger coordination. What are some of the things that a company can do to avoid antitrust issues during the HSR waiting period?

    Morse: The HSR rules prohibit firms not only from consummating deals but also from exercising control over the other party before the waiting period expires. And since the firms remain independent, allocating customers or coordinating prices can violate antitrust law.

    During due diligence, competitors need to consider antitrust issues when exchanging competitively sensitive confidential information. For example, they should ensure that they only share information required for due diligence and take steps such as restricting personnel that have access to information and limiting use of information shared, and in some cases setting up “clean teams” to review the most sensitive information.

    Firms can plan integration but cannot actually integrate during the HSR waiting period. Firms have gotten themselves in trouble when they started answering phones and handing out business cards at the target with the acquiring firm’s name, have had personnel report to managers at the other firm, or have sought approval from the other firm before giving discounts to customers.

    RE: What are some of the consequences or penalties companies face when their merger deals are scrutinized by the DOJ for HSR Act antitrust violations?

    Morse: A transaction may be delayed for months by a government investigation, even if the government never takes enforcement action. Keeping language out of offering memoranda, management presentations and other documents that must be provided to the government with HSR filings that may be misinterpreted by government can avoid such delay.

    If the government does conclude that a transaction will lessen competition, the typical remedy is divestiture of competing product lines. Where that is not possible deals may be blocked altogether or abandoned in the face of threatened enforcement, as we have seen recently with GE/Electrolux, Sysco/US Foods, and Comcast/TimeWarner.

    RE: Companies in a concentrated market with three or fewer competitors seem particularly susceptible to potential antitrust violations and tacit collusion. When companies are considering a merger or acquisition in a concentrated market, what if anything can they do to pre-empt collective dominance and collusion issues?
    HS
    Morse: Defending every case requires a careful examination of the facts. In some cases, one can argue the definition of the product or geographic market is broader and so not concentrated; in others one can argue that new entry will prevent anti-competitive effects; and in others one can argue that small fringe competitors or power buyers will constrain the merged firm. In dynamic, high-tech markets one can argue that the products are highly differentiated and rapidly changing, making collusion among remaining firms unlikely. In any case, it is important to consider the efficiencies that may result from the transaction, lowering costs or resulting in improved products to customers.
    RE: If companies in a concentrated market set the same prices for similar products does that always indicate an agreement to fix prices?

    Morse: Absolutely not. Two gas stations across the street from each other may well sell gas at the same price, posting their prices on a sign and their tanks for all to see, without fixing prices. Price fixing requires an agreement, though not an agreement in writing.

    RE: Originally there were rumors that Bumble Bee and Thai Union received subpoenas from the DOJ but Starkist didn’t, suggesting that Starkist may have been a whistleblower. Can you speak a bit about amnesty/corporate leniency for the first co-operator in an antitrust lawsuit?

    Morse: In order to encourage self-reporting of price fixing cartels, the government provides immunity or leniency to those that self report.

    The first company to report a cartel will be entitled to immunity if it does so before the government begins an investigation, it cooperates with the government, it was not a ringleader, it promptly ends its involvement in the cartel, and it makes restitution. Leniency may be available to the first company to come forward even after the government has begun an investigation.

    RE: Could seeking leniency for price fixing be a good alternative strategy for companies opposed to a proposed merger among competitors?

    Morse: For sure, it is a good bet the government will be skeptical of a merger in a concentrated market where there is a history of recent price fixing.

    Of course, while the first company to file for leniency may avoid criminal charges, it may still find itself liable for damages in civil antitrust suits. While in most antitrust cases, plaintiffs can recover treble damages, Congress in 2004 created an additional incentive for companies to report cartels, limiting civil damages recoverable from a corporate amnesty applicant to actual damages.

    RE: You provided expert commentary on the DOJ’s enforcement action against Flakeboard. What similarities or lessons learned (if any) do you see between the Bumble Bee / Thai Union DOJ investigation and the Flakeboard/Sierra antitrust lawsuit?

    Morse: DOJ obtained a $1.9 million civil penalty from both Flakeboard and Sierra Pine for violating the HSR Act, and they agreed to disgorge $1.15 million in “ill-gotten gains” for gun jumping.

    After announcing their merger, in the face of a labor dispute arose at one of the firm’s facilities, the firms consulted and reached agreement to close the facility and transfer customers to the other firm’s nearby facility, while the transaction was still being reviewed.

    DOJ alleged that conduct, which was undertaken without any assurance that the underlying transaction would be consummated, was per se unlawful under the antitrust laws, as well as gun jumping under the HSR Act.

    Whether what is at issue in the Bumble Bee / Thai Union matter is similar “gun jumping” activity, price fixing that pre-dated the merger, or lawful activity remains to be seen.

    RE: We’ve addressed what companies can do DURING the merger process and HSR waiting period to avoid anti-trust issues, Howard. Are there any steps pre-acquisition that companies can take to avoid running into problems with the DOJ? Meaning, as companies are considering an acquisition, what are the do’s and don’ts they should take to avoid running into problems later?

    Morse: Companies should avoid language in documents that suggest a deal is anti-competitive, for example, projecting that the deal will lead to price increases. At the same time, is important that companies consider, analyze and quantify efficiencies that will result from proposed transactions, and be able to explain why the deal will be good for customers. Certainly, companies should avoid writing documents that are a red flag for scrutiny, like I saw in one deal, when I was with the government, that said the proposed acquisition would allow the acquirer to “monopolize the industry … in an expeditious and timely manner.”

    RE: Are there any other Cooley anti-trust resources you can point our readers to for reference?

    Morse: Sure. Here’s a link to Cooley’s “How to Avoid Gun-Jumping” Article, a practical how-to for companies considering M&A opportunities.

    We hope RE:INVENTION’s interview with one of the nation’s leading M&A antitrust lawyers sparks thought and discussion among curious readers. We invite you to share your thoughts and stories in comments below. Many thanks to Howard Morse for sharing his insights.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:09:02 on 2015/11/18 Permalink
    Tags: brand advertising, digital marketing, , entrepreneur, evonexus, , innovation, innovation expert series, , , lyft, mark bowles, mobile advertising, mobile apps, on-vehicle advertising, , , , sharing economy, , , wrapify   

    Innovation Expert Series: Wrapify 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Innovation Expert Series: Wrapify

    In this week’s Innovation Expert Series interview, we’re getting up close and personal with the CEO and Co-Founder of Wrapify, James Heller.

    New to RE:INVENTION’s blog? Our biweekly Innovation Expert Series features interviews with key executives at small to midsize companies, like Wrapify, that are notably disrupting, transforming, and innovating within their respective industries or markets.

    Wrapify LogoWrapify is building a disruptive Internet of Things (IoT) crowdsourced advertising platform that connects drivers and brands to create powerful on-vehicle advertising. The company pays drivers $400 to $600 a month to temporarily “wrap” their cars with mobile ads while providing meaningful metrics to brand advertisers via their app.

    Wrapify’s business model, which has been compared to Uber and Lyft, capitalizes on the “sharing economy” (aka the “sweat your assets” economy). Wrapify graduated early from San Diego tech startup incubator EvoNexus and the team has relocated to San Francisco. The company is in-part funded by Mark Bowles, a well-noted San Diego serial entrepreneur.

    ************************************************************************

    RE: For those folks who aren’t yet aware of your startup, can you give us a brief background about yourself and Wrapify?

    Heller: I have a heavy background in B2B Digital Marketing and I have a passion for speed. Out of Home advertising has always fascinated me and I think the sharing/crowdsourced economy needed a market leader to pave the way for individuals to earn extra cash by advertising on their car.

    Wrapify is a disruptive advertising platform connecting drivers and brands to create powerful on-vehicle advertising. Through its proprietary mobile application and technology, Wrapify gives drivers an easy source of extra income, plus the power to choose the marketer and “look”: full, partial or panel advertising. Brands receive the security of control and benefit of trackable results. Ironclad controls ensure Wrapify’s powerful and intuitive platform protects both drivers and brands, while every member of the Wrapify Network ecosystem passes certification before they touch and transform a vehicle. Wrapify is the easiest way to make money on the road short of finding it in the street.

    RE: Where did you get the original inspiration for your idea? Do you recall the initial idea spark™?

    Heller: I assumed this concept already exists, but I later found out that many have tried and failed. We believe we have the missing component that this basic concept needs to be socially viable while also providing brands with the feedback loop they need to entrust that this is a positive way to get brand impressions in real life.

    RE: It’s tough to get from initial spark to implementable idea. Did you utilize any specific “lean startup” techniques to develop/test/launch Wrapify? If yes, how? If not, why not?

    Heller: Yes, I believe we subscribed to the lean startup methodology. We created an MVP (minimum viable product) and tested our hypothesis before we closed out our seed round. We were bootstrapped for many months before we raised a single dime.

    RE: Did you utilize any “design thinking” techniques? If yes, how? If not, why not?

    Heller: I am a big believer in less is more. Simplistic, minimalistic design is a core component to more than just the way Wrapify looks on the surface, we take it into the supply chain of our business and even many of the processes that power the lifeline of the business.

    Wrapify Team Members in Action

    Wrapify Team Members in Action

    RE: Describe your company’s biggest challenge to date. How did you deal with it? What did you learn from it?

    Heller: So far, getting big, national advertisers to leverage our platform and realize actual value and brand lift has been our #1 focus. Petco, Quest Nutrition, TriNet and Harrah’s Resorts have all experienced the power of our platform and are coming back for more.

    RE: How does your team promote internal and external innovation?

    Heller: If you are touting your breakthrough technology, internal and external innovation is not a choice, it’s a necessity. We are constantly looking for new ways to empower our drivers and provide value to our advertisers via innovative technologies added to the platform. Internally, we are constantly questioning why an age old practices are still used. Comically, we do everything we can to be a fax free, paper free company. Ha!

    RE: Have you found yourself having to pivot or reinvent aspects of your business since you started? How have you done so — and managed change?

    Heller: We are constantly making small pivots to achieve product/market fit. We monitor how our drivers leverage features within our app and the requests we get from advertisers quite regularly. One of my rules is, if three different people complain about or raise awareness to an issue with a feature, that’s enough to take action to make a change. Don’t wait for dozens or even hundreds of people to tell you your product sucks. Listen close to the early signals and make a change.

    RE: If you were forced to choose, which do you think is MOST important for a company’s long run success in your industry: great product, great people, or great execution?

    Heller: All three are critical but if I were to order them from most to least important; I would put execution first, people second and product third. It’s near impossible to execute if you don’t have the latter two.

    RE: What do you think is most important for your company to do in order to keep up with the rapid changes in technology?

    Heller: Don’t get so immersed in the microcosm that is your business to not notice the innovation and new technologies emerging outside your business.

    RE: So…what’s next for Wrapify?

    Heller: Stay tuned to find out!

    That’s a wrap on RE:INVENTION’s Innovation Expert Series interview with Wrapify. Many thanks to James Heller for sharing his insights. Look for our next Expert interview in two weeks time, right here on RE:INVENTION’s Everyday Inventive Blog.

     
  • feedwordpress 05:30:46 on 2015/10/28 Permalink
    Tags: community-run business model, Crowdfunding, , expert interviews, , , , innovation, international startups, , , Kickstarter, LoRaWAN, Playstation, , , smart cities, smart city, Sony, , The Things Network,   

    Innovation Expert Series: The Things Network 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Innovation Expert Series: The Things Network

    RE:INVENTION’s Innovation Expert Series features interviews with key executives at small to midsize companies that are notably disrupting, transforming, and innovating within their respective industries or markets.

    The Things NetworkIn this week’s Innovation Expert Series interview, we’re getting up close and personal with Wienke Giezeman, the passionately disruptive co-founder of The Things Network.

    The Things Network, an Amsterdam-based startup on a mission to build a global community-led Internet of Things (IoT) data network, could create abundant data connectivity and turn “smart cities” from an idealistic dream into a reality. The ambitious startup successfully crowdsourced a city-wide Internet of Things data network in Amsterdam earlier this summer. Now they are on a mission to connect cities across the world with the help of their new Kickstarter campaign.

    ************************************************************************

    RE: For those folks who aren’t yet aware of your startup, can you give us a brief background about The Things Network?

    Wienke: We are building a global free and open Internet of Things data network. We managed to cover the city of Amsterdam with this network in six weeks. Four weeks later, we had inspired cities around the world.

    We used 10 LoRaWAN gateways for €1200($1325) each, funded by the people of Amsterdam to cover the entirety of the city.

    Based on our feedback from other cities, we realized that the cost for a single gateway was still too high for this to truly scale so we went and designed a gateway that cost only €200($220) per gateway.

    RE: The Internet is buzzing about how The Things Network is poised to spur Smart City landscapes. Can you explain what a SMART CITY is for our readers? In your opinion, what makes a city SMART?

    Wienke: Smart city is a fancy term for a city that is digitally connected and has a lot of components connected to the Internet and each other. Our lives get better if we get a better understanding of what the state of the city is. Is the air clean here? Is the light broken there? Is this trash can full? The quality of urban living can be increased significantly if we get a better understanding of what the state of a city is and when we can make better decisions based on that information. Our network can act as the glue to connect the information to the smart decision makers.

    RE: Where did you get the original inspiration for your idea? Do you recall the initial idea spark™?

    Wienke: The initial spark was when I saw LoRaWAN, the technology that is used by this network. It has 10KM reach, can connect up to 10,000 devices and the devices have very low power consumption so they can be placed anywhere just running on a battery. I first saw the technology at the IoT Meetup in Amsterdam and was immediately struck by it’s capabilities. In general, it looked like one of the first true solutions for all the promises people had put on what the Internet of Things should be able to deliver.

    The Things Network Co-Founders in Action

    [THE THINGS NETWORK CO-FOUNDERS IN ACTION]

    RE: It’s tough to get from initial spark to implementable idea. Did you utilize any specific “lean startup” techniques to develop/test/launch The Things Network? If yes, how? If not, why not?

    Wienke: No, we just went for it. We were not “lean” at all. Initially we (me and Johan) were just two people who wanted to create a proof of concept, too small to consciously apply any process to it. You just do, learn and then you are there. Then working with the ten volunteers from our local meetup, when we covered Amsterdam with gateways, that went so fast, everyone fairly naturally found their role. You could call it “lean” in terms of the fast and fairly efficient way we turned it around, at the same time, I wouldn’t think of it as a consciously lean process. I believe real breakthroughs are rarely the result of applying process first. They tend to be chaotic, however you need to be the right type of person to be comfortable with the creative chaos and speed in such a project.

    RE: So you instinctively, but not purposefully, used a little bit of “lean” in terms of operational efficiencies. Did you utilize any “design thinking” techniques? If yes, how? If not, why not?

    Wienke: No, at the moment we work on the technology push. The only design we apply is for the hardware devices we produced in beta before the Kickstarter. They are very first stage proof-of-concepts. They work well, but are not necessarily pretty. That’s not our focus at this stage.

    We have the strong belief that if we provide abundant data connectivity good things will come from that. So a rigid and sustainable network comes first.

    It is obviously very hard and distracting to work on a network with so many possibilities. The amount of awesome ideas and use cases coming our way are unbelievable and inspiring. The Internet of things has been suffering from a chicken and egg problem for a while, with the applications on one end and the infrastructure on the other. We decided to first build the chicken.

    RE: The Things Network seems to be a rare example of the combination of having both a highly impactful product and amazing execution. Which do you think is more important for long run success: product or execution? Or both?

    Wienke: Both. A car needs a motor and it needs fuel. For now execution is really key. We need to tell the world our story because we need people all around the globe to understand the potential of this vision. The product is at the center of this. It needs to be compelling. Ease of distribution is another element, this is where Kickstarter is such an amazing tool and it is playing its role very well for all of us at the moment. The third aspect is community of course. This is who we are doing this with and they are playing the most important role in this. Look at Google, Facebook, Uber — big ideas that need to scale are so dependent on how they can scale through people and how useful they become for them.

    RE: You’ve chosen to utilize a community-run business model for The Things Network. Why so? Do you think a community-run business model will impact your ability to scale or make money in the long run?

    Wienke: It is fairly easy to scale an open community-run model. There are no contracts and you can copy our code. The community members all personally benefit from what each are doing and help out each other as well. Isn’t that just awesome! It has way less managerial overhead. Think about it — everyone has a phone, but no one has to update their operating systems themselves. Our modern systems have become so automated, that managing communities is heavily automated and runs in the background, as much as it is personalized. We see it as a benefit for the hardware distribution and scale. In the long-run is another discussion and business models tend to circulate around the software, not the hardware. For example, Sony made huge losses on their Playstation 4 disk drives. The model was not to make money on the hardware. They still run a very successful gaming platform.

    RE: It seems like LoRaWAN technology coupled with your community-run business model have the potential to disrupt the entire telco industry. How do you think telcos will cope with this new disruptive idea of building networks?

    Wienke: For now it is not a threat to the high-bandwidth networks. But if we follow Moore’s Law we can predict that it will just be a matter of time, before it is true competition. In terms of speed of deployment and scalability we did probably scare them a bit with this social experiment we call The Things Network.

    RE: You reached 75% of your Kickstarter campaign goal within the first 100 hours – and it looks like you are ticking towards 100% today. Congratulations! Why did you choose to launch a Kickstarter campaign now? Any big “A-has!” or surprises?

    Wienke: Because everybody knows Kickstarter and not everybody knows The Things Network. Our initial target audience is highly represented there and it is their number one preferred platform. We are doing very well. At the moment of writing, we’ve reached 93% funding and we were featured on Kickstarter today. We have picked up more cities around the world and are adding new communities daily.

    As it is our first Kickstarter, we are learning every day. The shipping costs were an issue but we had very understanding feedback from the backers and worked very hard in the first 24 hrs to find a better solution that would make everybody happy. We proposed giving everybody who orders a gateway a free UNO. It was great, to be able to have an actual conversation with the backers and we are happy we found a solution quickly. We are trying to be as communicative as we can despite being a small team managing the campaign, conference talks, our developers forum and supporting our global communities, whilst working on the backend software doing all of this as best we can. Big learning process, but the communication tools that didn’t exist 10 years ago are an amazing help managing a project as ambitious as this.

    RE: So…what’s next for The Things Network?

    Wienke: Covering the world to help see IoT truly take off the way it is supposed to. The next step is to make sure we are represented in every large city in the world.

    We’ve had an amazing start so far. We haven’t even seen how big the Kickstarter campaign could be in 20 days. There are many things to do already, with the communities growing so fast. If everything goes well, in about 20 days we will be producing all the wonderful devices we raised money for — and that’s when the real work begins. If you want to take the lead in campaigning for your city, we can set you up with a page LIKE THIS. We are recruiting local initiators. SIGN UP HERE and we will get back to you shortly.

    Many thanks to Wienke Giezeman (and his co-founder, Johan Stokking) for sharing insights during this week’s Expert Series. Look for our next Expert interview in two weeks time, right here on RE:INVENTION’s Everyday Inventive Blog.

     
  • feedwordpress 20:48:04 on 2014/02/26 Permalink
    Tags: actionable benchmarking, actionable results, audits, , brands, , , Coke, , General Mills, innovation, , ,   

    The #1 Secret of Successful Benchmarking 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    The #1 Secret of Successful Benchmarking

    Benchmarking can be a company eye-opener. Internal, competitive, and outside industry benchmarking all have merits. Internal benchmarking can foster best practices. Assessing performance versus competitors can reveal your shortcomings and tell you where to focus. Looking at other industries can generate creative ideas for growth.

    During my days leading marketing and innovation initiatives at Coke, General Mills, and Whole Foods, I participated in numerous company benchmarking exercises. We benchmarked quality measures, workload, product development, pricing, channel management, market information management, packaging design, and marketing implementation. Each company had its own unique approach to benchmarking — from searching publicly available data to primary research using IT-supported software tools.

    Here’s what I learned: the secret of successful benchmarking isn’t about HOW or WHERE YOU DIG. In other words, it isn’t about how you conduct your audit (there are no “right” or “wrong” rules). Or whether you benchmark performance inside the four walls of your company, against competitors within your industry, or outside your industry…

    The #1 Secret of Successful Benchmarking

    The #1 secret of successful benchmarking is knowing what to do with the information you discover — taking the results and making them actionable.

    Knowing where you stand provides a point of reference for what could be and reveals uncommon, oft surprising insights — but it’s only half of the equation. Discovery is not enough. Benchmarking data needs to support action to have any significant meaning or effect. And this holds true for companies of all sizes — from startups to global Fortune 100 corporations.

    How to Make Benchmarking Data Actionable

    Actionable data is always better than big data. The most important part of any benchmarking process is creating a plan of action that will improve organization performance. You need to leverage your new knowledge and implement changes.

    Some tips to get you started:

    1. Start with a Goal
      Before you launch any benchmarking initiative, define what you want to accomplish. Clear objectives. How will you use the data to create value? At Coke, our benchmarking exercise goal was to justify shifting from glass to plastic packaging in the Non-Carbonated Beverages Division.
    2. Schedule Collaborative Sessions To Review Benchmark Findings
      Facilitate internal discussion and interaction to identify ways that you can use results to improve business performance. After conducting retail industry benchmarking activities at Whole Foods, we held numerous cross-functional team member workshops to assess and plan store design and product merchandising changes.
    3. Improve Your Enterprise Asset Management Systems
      Despite IT asset management systems being at the bottom of the trough of disillusionment in Gartner’s 2012 Hype Cycle, a good asset management system can make actionable benchmarking less formidable. Sharing knowledge assets across your company can improve data utilization and performance. With nearly 40,000 employees worldwide, General Mills used benchmarking results to build a massive standardized system for managing enterprise learning. The result? Stronger total employee engagement across the organization. Early stage companies can do this too, simply by storing and sharing data between founders and future team members.
    4. Integrate Benchmarks Into Sales and Operations Planning Cycles and Day-to-Day Planning
      Help the front line. Ensure that benchmarking data is available to employees every time they make a decision about the future. This single act can boost innovation in your company from the bottom up.
    5. Reallocate Resources
      Consider realigning resources — tear down silo walls — to activate your company’s plan of action after benchmarking. Concentrate resources on realistic targets.

    Hungry for more benchmarking best practices? Check out this oldie but goodie from Harvard’s Working Knowledge titled, “Best Practices for Benchmarking,” originally published in 2003. Ahh, memories! That was the year I officially incorporated RE:INVENTION, inc..

     
  • feedwordpress 11:38:19 on 2014/02/11 Permalink
    Tags: , , business failure, , , change managment, , donald sull, , , , , innovation, , innovation barriers, innovation management, , london business school, Michigan, , mudhole, passive resistence, South Carolina,   

    Crummy Implementation Cripples Companies, Not Inertia 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Crummy Implementation Cripples Companies, Not Inertia
    Image credit: www.atvcourse.com

    Many business experts will tell you that inertia kills companies. That the biggest barrier to innovation is inertia – paralysis or passive resistance prevents innovation from getting started.

    IN REALITY….

    Few companies, if any, suffer from inertia. Executives, managers, and employees rarely are too paralyzed to take any action. They are always doing *SOMETHING* even if only to justify their job. Alas, they are often accelerating the wrong activities and they aren’t doing the right activities well. They spin their wheels like a car stuck in mud.

    My family hails from Michigan and South Carolina, a state that boasts its own Mud Run Guide. Here’s what I know: when your car gets stuck in mud, you are almost always better off if you stop digging your wheels into the ground and turn off your engine. To get out of a mudhole, you need to add traction or use a winch.

    In 1999, London Business School Professor Donald Sull also questioned the incidence of paralyzing business inertia and coined the alternative term “active inertia.” Sull suggested that active inertia — responding to market shifts by accelerating activities that succeeded in the past rather than ceasing activity altogether — causes business failure.

    Sull is partially but not completely correct.

    Inertia doesn’t kill companies; there is little to no evidence of companies being too paralyzed to take any action at all. And active inertia is rarely a company’s problem; faced with mounting competitive pressure, most companies get desperate and unleash a flurry of new, oft ill-conceived initiatives to try to stop the bleeding. What causes companies to fail nearly every time is crummy (or sloppy) execution.

    CRUMMY IMPLEMENTATION CRIPPLES COMPANIES, NOT INERTIA

    In my humble opinion, the biggest barrier to innovation is EXECUTIONAL EXCELLENCE.  The world is littered with great ideas, poorly implemented.

    Take for instance, Kodak. Contrary to media reports, Kodak didn’t suffer from inertia (“paralysis”) OR active inertia (“relentless pursuit of the tried and true”). The company was never short on new ideas. Kodak developed countless technology innovations over the years including the digital camera in 1975 but they failed to successfully commercialize it. They held $3 billion worth of patents, valued at more than five times the company itself. They suffered from numerous reorganization efforts — CEO after CEO — making it incredibly difficult to implement smart long-term strategy. Their eager and rash M&A and alliance deals — from Scitex to Imation to Verizon and Creo — lacked strategic due diligence and led to integration headaches. Kodak was undeniably IN MOTION, spinning its wheels like a car stuck in mud.

    ARE YOU SPINNING YOUR WHEELS?

    Are you in an innovation rut? Instead of spinning your wheels and digging a deeper hole, get better at business execution. Create sound action plans but remember that execution and making strategy work is more difficult than the task of strategic planning (developing the strategy is never more important than the results). Hold people accountable, involve the right people in decisions, build “change readiness”, practice the 12 C’s of Commercializing Innovation. In other words: figure out a way to add traction or find a winch. It starts with analyzing and improving your internal innovation processes and your go-to-market strategies.

    Editor’s Post Script: No intended offense to Dr. Sull. He’d be an excellent thesis adviser were I ever to pursue a PhD.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:57:22 on 2013/12/11 Permalink
    Tags: 2013 trends, 2014 forecast, , Albert Cheng, bill clinton, brian burke, , Disney, e-learning, eMarketer, , foursquare, gamification, gartner, gartner's hype cycle, , , innovation, , , IPOs, , macarthur foundation, , , , mozilla, mozilla labs, multi-tasking, NEXT TV Summit, open badges, openbadges.org, recofriendations, Schrage, second screen, the Fed, trend hunter, , VC funds, VCs, , , washington post, youGov   

    A Look Back: Michael Schrage’s Four 2013 Innovation Predictions 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    A Look Back: Michael Schrage’s Four 2013 Innovation Predictions

    As the business world looks back on this year’s trends and looks forward to 2014, we’re revisiting what experts predicted for this year last December.

    Last week, we reviewed and evaluated Vivek Wadhwa’s five 2013 innovation predictions. On tap today: a review of MIT Sloan School research fellow Michael Schrage’s four 2013 innovation predictions, as featured in his December 2012 Harvard Business Review Guest Post.

    Let’s get started…

    1. Proliferation of Open Badges Online

    According to Schrage, badges would increasingly be used in the online world to earmark valid and verifiable accreditation from companies, academic institutions, and professional associations.

    Scorecard: Miss.

    Open badges have their roots in gamification. Alas, the gamification backlash has begun. Gamification currently is at the very top of the Peak of Inflated Expectations in Gartner’s Hype Cycle, dangerously close to teetering into “the trough of disillusionment.”

    Gamification: Gartner Hype Cycle Position

    The Trough of Disillusionment (A Definition)
    “Technologies and related startups … fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable. The press usually abandons the topic.” (SOURCE: BUSINESS INSIDER)

    According to Gartner research VP Brian Burke, companies/developers that get fixated on points and badges fail. “You just can’t put badges on something and expect it to work,” Burke has said.

    In June 2013, Mozilla Labs, the MacArthur Foundation, and former President Bill Clinton launched the Open Badges Project to promote the use of badges to identify online credentials. Q42013 project momentum has been slow. In fact, the project hasn’t had any press coverage since Schrage’s HBR forecast.

    We suspect that open accreditation badges will face a long uphill battle for three reasons: (1) talent capabilities need to be proven, not asserted (2) the judgment of “capabilities” is subjective and (3) the idea of badges conflicts with America’s “prizes for all” culture and is likely to suffer from gamification’s downslope trend. Without secure signing, open badges are subject to a huge host of other issues.

    We’re doubtful that badges (Mozilla or otherwise) will revolutionize e-learning or disrupt higher education in the near future.

    2. A Big Boom in Second Screen Multi-Tasking

    Multidevice engagement and multi-tasking would be increasingly omnipresent in 2013, predicted Schrage. Content creators worldwide would readjust their business models accordingly.

    Scorecard: Miss.

    Networks, advertisers, and social-media services trying to capitalize on the “second screen phenomenon” have encountered challenges. Twitter is still the only social television app with any critical mass.

    Many noted experts are beginning to declare that you can’t make money with second screen. That second screen equates to “no-income advertising.” The more we drive consumers to the second screen, the harder it becomes to monetize their time and attention.

    According to a new report by eMarketer, roughly half of all Americans look at their social networks while watching TV but only one in six post something about what they’re watching.

    Disney’s Digital EVP, Albert Cheng, especially dislikes second screen. “Second screen apps are not a game that we want to be in,” said Cheng at the Next TV Summit in San Francisco during September. “Second screen is a distraction.”

    If brand and network hesitancy and absence of ROI are not enough to thwart second screen, most viewers DVR shows and watch them later (save for rare “extreme fan” exceptions like the Super Bowl and Breaking Bad’s finale).

    We simply don’t see second screen stealing ad share away from television.

    3. Recofriendations

    According to Schrage, social media recommendations from friends would be taken more seriously in 2013, offering sophisticated reasons and rationales for recommendations. Schrage predicted we’d see feedback loop links between Quora and Outlook/Gmail/Linkedin/Facebook. Links between Expedia/Outlook/and social networks. Links between Powerpoint/Slideshare/and social networks.

    Scorecard: Miss.

    Are we guided by what the Jones’ are doing? In the real world, yes. Via social networks? Surprisingly no. The value of social recommendations is on a steep declining slope. While research has shown that 70 percent of consumers trust social media recommendations from friends more than traditional advertising, people don’t buy what their friends RECOMMEND on social media platforms.

    Is Facebook’s search technology failing marketers? A growing number of companies believe that Facebook ads don’t work. New research from YouGov reveals that 83% of shoppers will ignore friends’ social media recommendations this holiday season. Social recommendations increase discovery and trust, but not sales (particularly among males). Keller-Fay, the word of mouth specialist, reports that 90% of brand conversations still take place offline.

    As for the extensive recofriendation feedback loop links across all social networks? Didn’t really happen.

    4. Easy Capital

    Schrage believed the Fed’s policies would make it easier for innovative entrepreneurs to raise capital in 2013. He expected entrepreneurship to be perceived as an “alternative investment” with huge appeal to institutional investors seeking diversification options. “There may never be a better time to be a charismatic entrepreneur with a scalable prototype,” Schrage wrote.

    Scorecard: Miss.

    Though the final tally is not yet in, year-end 2013 venture capital investments are expected to be lower than 2012.  VCs are taking smaller stakes and structuring fewer deals with liquidation preferences. Most VC funds are small. IPOS are still unlikely to be a rich exit (even Twitter stock is proving volatile). And the series A crunch continues. Overall seed stage investment in startups has decreased from a year ago.

    Medical devices startups, in particular, continue to face a VC funding freeze. Medtech investments are at their lowest point in 9 years. The 2.3 percent medical device tax is contributing to the gloomy fundraising outlook.

    The cold hard facts: ninety percent of all businesses in the US have 0-5 employees. They are small and most will stay small.

    MY OVERALL EVALUATION OF MICHAEL SCHRAGE’S 2013 INNOVATION PREDICTIONS
    Optimistic. The Year That COULD Have Been. Predictions are just educated guesses. Optimism can be a good thing but it can impair your forward-thinking vision. Without realism, unbridled optimism can lead to real-world disaster.

    So, how would you score Michael Schrage’s 2013 predictions? Which trend surprised you most this year? What was YOUR favorite 2013 innovation or technology prediction? Did it come to fruition?

    Up next week: Trend Hunter Jeremy Gutsche”s 20 predictions for 2013 predictions, revealed IN THIS VIDEO. Due to space, we’ll recap five of our favorites and assess whether his predictions came true.

     
  • feedwordpress 18:42:11 on 2013/12/09 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , innovation, , , Kindle, Mayday, , , transformation, XBOX One   

    Looking Ahead to 2014 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Looking Ahead to 2014

    There are more than enough posts about predictions and trends for 2014 out there to entertain your mind. I’m not one to make predictions. I prefer to set the agenda. Two things I will talk about in this post to look forward to the next year: connected experiences and how we think about innovation.

    Let’s Talk About Connected Experiences

    While most of the discussion in 2014 will still be around the hot topics of Big Data, The Internet of Things, 3D Printing, and other buzzworthy topics; what holds these things together and can’t be easily replicated is an overall connected experience.  Organizations will still look at all of the hot topics as separate pieces, to see how they can integrate them, and this is usually how it starts: you starting testing in isolation until you figure out if works for you.

    But experiences are more fluid and connected than ever. The recent advances in sync technology that the XBOX One brings to the table is a leading indicator on how devices are connected experiences. You can bring them with you anywhere. And, while tablets and smartphones will become pervasive touch points in those experiences, the human element will not be replaced. People still want to have contact with people, if it makes sense.

    Amazon shows that they understand this better than ever with their Mayday feature that comes with the newest breed of Kindles. Whether they got it right or wrong isn’t the point. What they are saying is that they want to have contact with customers, and will be available with one click when the customer needs them. This is thinking ahead of the game, and just comes to show how they are “retail”.

    The Key Takeway Here

    The conversation about emerging technologies should be around the connected experience and outcomes for customers, not the benefits for an organization. Your point of view should define what to do and what not to do.

    To look back is to look forward. The saddest thing about 2013 is that the word “innovation” keeps getting diluted. It is now a marketing ploy. Before the end of the year, and every day after that, companies who are serious about innovation should ask themselves this question: how can we be the only ones who do what we do?

    The answer to that question isn’t about Big Data, or any other “hot topic”, it is about what are you enabling customers to do. How are you transforming them?

    People don’t remember specific features, they remember the experience had. Companies are confusing a product upgrade with innovation, and to believe that changing one thing is enough to make a splash is short-term-ism at its finest. A recent post on the Wall Street Journal has pretty much put it in perspective how executives are looking at innovation: “something that is innovative to them”.

    The Right Way to Think About Innovation

    The right way to think about innovation is this: how are we transforming customers? How are we helping them be innovative?

    This is a different way of thinking about value proposition; it’s about developing human capital. Not simply delivering a product or service “because that is what companies do”. Companies that believe that out-featuring competitors is the way to innovation riches are kidding themselves. You might feel that way in the short term, but you are simply adding more wood to the fire that creates a thick screen of smoke that distracts and annoys people.

    Customers, people, users, are experiencing more chaos than ever. Too many choices are creating noise in their lives. This is a huge opportunity for both startups and established companies to make an impact in people’s lives. The sooner you rethink how you look at innovation, the faster you will orient your efforts towards really thinking about how you might transform them.

    To finish, I’ll leave you with this last thought: the more you say you are innovative, the less innovative you are.

     

     
  • feedwordpress 20:31:17 on 2013/11/25 Permalink
    Tags: , , , crowdsourcing, , ideation, innovation, , obama, , voice of customer   

    Be Thankful For: Ideation 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Be Thankful For: Ideation

    It’s Thanksgiving week and we all are giving thanks for our families, our health, and of course, football. But what am I thankful for in the new world of business and innovation? I’m thankful for IDEATION.

    Ideation is a technique in the early, fuzzy front end part of innovation, the part of the innovation lifecycle where ideas are gathered and curated.  A whole new industry has blossomed around this activity and its tools.  Salesforce had one of the first tools available and was heavily used as part of Obama’s grassroots campaign.  Other big players that have sprouted are Spigit and BrightIdea.

    Why I’m Thankful for Ideation

    1. Ideation was one of the first crowdsourcing concepts taken from the Internet and applied to a business context.  It helped shepherd in a wave of other concepts and tools to shape the way companies generate new revenue and enhance their business through the Innovation Lifecycle.
    2. Ideation holds the promise to generate better ideas with more accuracy and speed, enabling businesses to shorten their product lifecycles.  The wisdom of the crowd can come to as accurate or more accurate a conclusion than any back room analyst can but much quicker.  The process of group think naturally curates and validates the content because of the diversity and breadth of experience that exists within the crowd.  And if the crowd consists of your target audience or your front-line employees who are closest to our customers, then the outcomes of this process should lead to more accurate insight to your customer’s true needs and wants than an analyst validating through his opinion and numbers.
    3. Ideation has amplified the voice of your individual customers and employees giving them a greater sense of influence.  The old suggestion box process was always unsatisfying.  Ideas would disappear into a black hole only to be reviewed by individuals with their own opinions and agendas within a command and control communication process.  It left the contributor feeling as if his opinion had little impact.  But Ideation puts their opinions in front of everyone increasing the transparency of the overall process and one in which your idea can be validated and enhanced as others contribute to it.  When I introduced Ideation to my last company, I can’t tell you how many emails I received from our employees thanking me for giving them a vehicle for their voice to be heard.

    But That’s Only Part of the Process

    Ideation only solved a small part of the overall innovation process.  The good news is that it has only amplified what is missing during the design and execution phases of the lifecycle.  As Ideation raises new ideas transparently in a public forum, it will naturally put pressure on those to implement the ideas otherwise they will lose their audience.  Hopefully, this will pressure businesses to take a more holistic view of the innovation lifecycle and impress upon them the importance to implement the rest of the process.

    Bringing ideas into the open is a necessary but tricky process as it may bring forth ideas that may seem counter-intuitive or potential land mines to touch.  However, it only reflects the true needs or wants of your customers.  Case in point:  the 2008 Obama campaign utilized Salesforce’s new idea platform to poll the voters on what they would like to see in Obama’s campaign platform.  It was a nice tool as it really allowed voters to contribute what they were concerned about and then to build upon those ideas.   Ideas that scored the highest through votes and contribution rose to the top.  Interestingly enough, the number one concern of the public at that time as expressed by voters was legalization of marijuana.  Obama completely ignored the topic even within virtual open houses on the Internet that discussed some of the top ideas.  It was obviously considered a political landmine.  But look at where we are today?  Marijuana legalization has become a top agenda for many in the U.S. with a majority favoring it in some way.

    You Can’t Ignore the Voice of Your Customer

    Ignoring the voice of your customer will only last so long.  They are telling you what they really want.  The best approach is to have a conversation in the open and respect your customer’s voice.  You can have an honest conversation even explaining why you may not be able to address their concerns at the moment, but simply recognizing acknowledging their concerns in an open forum can go a long way to build customer loyalty and trust.  Ignoring it will simply do the opposite.

    At RE:INVENTION, we understand the voice of the individual and the power it has in developing new products and services.  We understand that a truly successful innovation process addresses he complete lifecycle.

    Have a happy Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy it with your loved ones.

     
  • feedwordpress 17:40:39 on 2013/11/20 Permalink
    Tags: adjacent possible, center for talent innovation, , Company culture, , , dissent, diversity, diversity prediction theorem, innovation, , scott page, thanksgiving   

    Be Thankful For: Diversity and Dissent 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Be Thankful For: Diversity and Dissent

    “A peaceful, harmonious workplace can be the worst possible thing for a business because it leads to complacency, the biggest predictor of poor company performance.”

    - Harvard Business Review (“How to Pick a Good Fight,” December 2009).

    While the Thanksgiving holiday is riddled with myths — a fairytale of friendly pilgrims dining with Indians — it’s a perfect time to reflect on diversity.

    Diversity and dissent drive innovation. Successful companies embrace diverse perspectives and promote a systematic process of constructive criticism.

    According to a September 2013 Center for Talent Innovation (CTI) study:

    • Companies that demonstrate leadership diversity are 70 percent more likely to capture a new market and 45 percent more likely to improve market share.
    • When companies encourage/reward diversity and dissent, employees are 3.5 times more likely (67 percent versus 16 percent) to contribute their full innovative potential.
    • Ideation teams are most successful when they mine a talent pool of people whose non-mainstream backgrounds lead to new interpretations and points of view.

    Diversity and dissent light a fire to innovation because they increase perspective, improve problem-solving abilities, and boost potential for better solutions and big breakthroughs. They expand your set of the “adjacent possible” — what is possible next given existing conditions and knowledge. The GREATER the diversity the better, according to the Diversity Prediction Theorem.

    For this reason, RE:INVENTION’s team is comprised of former Fortune 100 company execs, leading technologists, lean entrepreneurs, MBAs, engineers, and design thinkers. When we conduct Innovation Incubation Labs for our Clients, our team’s diversity propels fresh thinking. And our team conducts feats of strength (ala George’s family on Seinfeld) during the holidays to facilitate tension.

    Ok. So we don’t really do that last bit. Joe, our Business Intelligence and Technology Practice Leader, would win every time if we did (he competes in Iron Man competitions).

    Want to create a company culture of diversity and dissent? Deloitte’s 2013 “Diversity Report” recommends: hiring with debate in mind, giving employees permission to disagree, sponsoring reverse mentorship programs, shifting to team-based evaluation, and rewarding successes that are a result of diversity.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    If you are interested in diversity training, consider this online course from noted University of Michigan professor Scott Page. For the record, I really like today’s blog image featuring two sparring turkeys. What did one turkey say to the other? Nothing. Because turkeys can’t talk.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel