Open Innovation Design

Nearly 2 years ago, I used open innovation to develop the logo used on this site.

I am now using open innovation again to help redesign my Personality Poker cards.

As you know, later this year, the Personality Poker book will be published by Penguin’s Portfolio imprint.  The publisher designed the book cover (we aren’t prepared to share that with the world quite yet).  Then, based on that design, the backs of the Personality Poker cards were redesigned to match (image left).

Yesterday, I launched a design project on 99designs.com, the leader in design-based open innovation.  Last time I ran a competition, I had some interesting learnings.

One of the challenges had to do with people building on the ideas of others.  In some respects, this was great.  As a good design was developed, others could help refine and improve.  However, as my article points out, there was a downside: how to choose a winner.

But the other downside associated with a collaborative challenge is “group think.”  As soon as the first idea is thrown out, it tends to influence the thinking of the other contributors, narrowing the set of ideas generated and reducing divergent thinking.  I discuss this concept in my article on the “hand dryer vs paper towel debate.”

Therefore, for the poker card redesign, I decided to go with private submissions.  That is, no one can see what others are submitting.  I will write more about my experience with this next week.

If you are interested in reading the design brief without having to logon to 99designs, you can read it here (pdf).

Or, if you want to submit your own designs for my challenge, go to the 99designs website.

Three Innovation Distinctions (Part 3): Diversity not Homogeneity

This is the third of my “innovation distinctions” entries. [for your convenience, all three articles have been packaged into one pdf file]

In the first part of this series, I wrote why you should focus on “Challenges, not Ideas.” Next, I addressed the distinction of “Process, not Events.”

In this final entry, I discuss why innovation requires “Diversity not Homogeneity.” Be sure to read the previous two articles before reading this one.

As mentioned in the other blog entries, I first shared these distinctions with a group of speakers and authors who were brainstorming ways to improve the learning experience for other speakers and authors who attend their conferences. Here’s the Catch 22: Having only speakers and authors speaking to other speakers and authors does not lead to much creativity. Most of the “ideas” presented are well-worn and don’t address the “real world” outside of the industry.

Therefore, my last suggestion to the group was to increase the level of diversity at these learning experiences. This would provide a wider range of ideas, suggestions, and points-of-view.

How does diversity apply to an organization?

Diversity can mean a wide variety of things:

• Diversity of race, creed, color, sex, etc
• Diversity of innovation styles
• Diversity of disciplines

I won’t address the first point as that has been a topic of discussion for decades. Let me tackle the next two.

Diversity of Innovation Styles
The second point ties directly to my Innovation Personality Poker system.

In the card-based game, I discuss the four primary innovation styles: analytical, creative, planning/action, engagement.  Most organizations favor one over another and therefore do not have a good balance of styles. There’s a reason for this.

Although homogeneous teams are often more efficient (i.e., you get things done faster), having a bunch of “yes men” working for you is not the answer for long-term growth. When people think too much alike, new ideas struggle to surface. In these homogeneous climates, innovation and growth (i.e., effectiveness) suffer.

The essence of successful companies, then, is the ability to be both efficient and effective. They are able to focus on both production and innovation, not just doing things right but also doing the right things.

There’s plenty of evidence that team diversity translates directly into corporate profits. Sigal Barsade and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton business school studied top management teams at large corporations in the United States. Interestingly, the more diverse the functional roles of the members of those teams were, the greater the average, market-adjusted financial return in those companies. Diversity of the top leaders translated into bottom-line results.

In Personality Poker, there are four key concepts:

• You need people in your organization “play to their strong suit.” That is, make sure that everyone understands how they contribute to and detract from the innovation process. This includes ensuring that you have the right people with the right leadership styles in your organization.
• As an organization, “play with a full deck.” You must embrace a wide range of innovation styles. Instead of hiring on competency and chemistry, also hire for a diversity of innovation styles. Every step of the innovation process must be addressed. You need people who are great at conducting research, delivering results, developing plans and reports, building relationships, and creating new ideas, amongst other things.
• “Deal out the work.” That is, you must divide and conquer. You can’t have everyone in your organization do everything. Instead, get them to divvy up the work based on which style is most effective at a given task. You can’t have everyone generating ideas, or focusing on planning.
• Recognize that in order to treat everyone the same, you must treat everyone differently. People have different needs in terms of how they like to be managed, how they like to be praised, and how they want to contribute to the organization. In order to attract and retain a well-balanced organization you must be prepared to treat people as they want to be treated. To do this, you must overcome the inertia of your company’s personality and embrace the needs of the individual personalities.

I could write a whole book on the value of diverse teams.  Oh, wait, I did!  My Personality Poker book will be published by Penguin’s Portfolio imprint Fall 2010.  Throughout, I provide examples of, and evidence for the value of having a diversity of “styles” within your organization.

But what about the third type of diversity: The diversity of disciplines.

Diversity of Discipline
A discipline is any area of expertise like biology, chemistry, physics or mathematics. You can have an organization comprised of diverse innovation styles while sharing only one discipline.

A while back, I spoke with Al Bredenberg, Senior Researcher from ILO Institute. He subsequently wrote an excellent blog entry on the topic of diversity where he quotes me. He also mentions a Harvard Business Review article by Lee Fleming that suggests that companies with less diversity of discipline produce better overall financial results than highly diverse ones.

“The financial value of the innovations resulting from such cross-pollination is lower, on average, than the value of those that come out of more conventional, siloed approaches. In other words, as the distance between the team members’ fields or disciplines increases, the overall quality of the innovations falls…. But my research also suggests that the breakthroughs that do arise from such multidisciplinary work, though extremely rare, are frequently of unusually high value—superior to the best innovations achieved by conventional approaches…When members of a team are cut from the same cloth, you don’t see many failures, but you don’t see many extraordinary breakthroughs either.”

However, as the diversity of disciplines increases, “the average value of the team’s innovations falls while the variation in value around that average increases. You see more failures, but you also see occasional breakthroughs of unusually high value.”

Therefore, although there is value to diversity of disciplines, the challenges seem to outweigh the benefits.

What’s the solution to having a diversity of disciplines without having to deal with the inherent complexities?

Open Innovation. By working with companies like InnoCentive, you get the value of discipline diversity while having few of the downsides.  You get the take advantage of a wide range of experiences while only paying for successful solutions.

I will write more on Open Innovation in subsequent entries.

The Bottom Line
Diversity can create incredible value for an organization. It can help facilitate the innovation process. It can help increase the quantity and quality of breakthrough ideas. The key is knowing the right way of managing and engaging a diverse set of perspectives.

I Need Your Help: Personality Poker Book Subtitle

I need your help!

I am in the process of finishing the manuscript for my next book, “Personality Poker.”  The book will be published by Penguin’s Portfolio books and is expected in stores September 2010.

We have been working on a subtitle for the book – and I would love your input.

I realize that you don’t know the details of the book.  But in general, it is about creating high performing innovation teams through the use of my specially designed poker cards.  There are a few key concepts:

1. Individuals should “play to their strong suit.”  In Personality Poker, the four suits correlate to the four primary innovation styles and the four steps of the innovation process.  Therefore, if you understand your innovation style/suit, you can maximize your contributions to your team.   [NOTE: "strong suit" is actually a term from bridge and not poker]
2. Organizations must “play with a full deck.”  That is, companies must have all of the styles (and sub-styles) in order to truly be innovative.  Most organizations are out of balance and have too many of just one or two styles.  This inhibits innovation.
3. “Deal out the work.”  Once everyone is clear about their role in the innovation process, you want to divide and conquer.  Avoid having everyone do everything.  Give people specific tasks and roles.

That’s the 10,000 (maybe 30,000) foot view.  You can learn more – and watch a video – on the Personality Poker page.

So, the question is, what is a good subtitle? Here’s a list of some ideas we had…

• “[How to] Play Your Best Hand to Win Big in Business”
• “[How to] Play with a Full Deck to Win Big in Business”
• “[How to] Play to Your Strong Suit to Win Big in Business”
• “[How to] Play with a Full Deck to Create High Performing Teams”
• “[How to] Play to Your Strong Suit to Create High Performing Teams”
• “[How to] Play Your Best Hand to Create High Performing Teams”

Do you like any of these?  Note that the “How to” is optional as each subtitle can stand on its own without those words.

Better yet, I would love to get new ideas for a subtitle.

Please leave your suggestion (either a new idea or a vote for an existing idea) as a comment.  If we end up using your subtitle, we will send you the Personality Poker system (a $200 value).  Plus, when the new book is published, we will send you a signed copy (with an additional deck of the redesigned cards).

Thanks in advance for your help.

Take Our Ultracool Test that Assesses the Unconscious Mind!

As many of you know, I am working on the manuscript for my next book.  It is based on “Personality Poker,” a game that is primarily used to help organizations be more innovative.  But everyone enjoys it because it is a fun card-based game that tells you all about your personality.

As part of my research for the book, I partnered with a professor in the psychology department of a well-known Cambridge, MA based Ivy League University (I’m sure you can guess who they are).

This university (ok, it’s Harvard) developed an approach for testing the implicit or unconscious mind.  You can read about it a previous blog entry.  This is fascinating stuff!  Read the article if you have not done so.

I loved the Implicit Association Testing so much that I had them develop a Personality Poker version. There is nothing out there like it!  Admittedly, it is not as much fun as the card-based version.  You take it on your computer.  And it takes A LOT of concentration.  But it is an interesting process.

And for the holidays, for a very limited time, I am allowing people to take the current version of the test with 4 simple stipulations:

1. You will not share the “experiment file” with anyone else.  This is important because we are constantly refining the process to make it more accurate, simpler, and more insightful.
2. You will take the entire test which lasts for about 30 minutes without interruption.
3. You will send the “dat” file to me via email after taking the test.  This will help us compare explicit and implicit beliefs.  Your personal information is confidential.
4. You agree not to sue me for damages if your head explodes after taking this test!

If you are interested in taking this test, please write us at iat-test@personalitypoker.net (please note it is a .net and not a .com).  We will send you the link and the password.  You will not be added to any lists.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Happy New Year.

NOTE: I am told that the software will not work on a MAC unless you are running a Windows emulator such as Virtual PC.

London FT Innovate Conference

My schedule has been crazy lately!  My work with InnoCentive, my speeches all over the planet, and a manuscript due in a few weeks.  My blogging has become the victim of this.  But that will change.

This week I am one of the speakers at the FT Innovate conference in London.  I will also be blogging about the lessons learned from each of the presenters.

My topic is Innovation Personality Poker.  This is a bit less “serious” than most of the other topics on the agenda.  But immediately afterward, I am leading a roundtable discussion on Open Innovation.

Next week I am speaking at the TEDxNASA conference where my topic will be “Innovation is in the Space.”  And the week after Thanksgiving I am speaking at an Open Innovation conference in Florida.

Stay tuned.

« Previous Page — Next Page »