MeKnows

Few businesses can afford to remain on the same track for a long time, selling exactly the same products, following unchangeable procedures and relying on one set of tested solutions. In a complex and fast changing environment, every company has to stimulate innovation to keep up with competition. It concerns both the level of specific products or services, which have to be developed and adjusted with a view to what rivals are up to and where the market is headed, but also organizational improvements. It is not an easy task to put together much needed change and stability, without which most employees would find their daily job unbearable and customers would find the company totally unpredictable. As a result, decision-makers are left with the problem of how to organize innovation so that it powers changes, but does not impede day-to-day operations.

 The first model is based on a freestyle attitude. Innovation, its proponents argue, is a natural consequence of letting people have some freedom in company matters, small and big. There is no real need to put the whole process in a tight organizational framework, but it is essential to make sure that employees have a percentage of their time and energy devoted to seeking improvements. Motivation can come from financial rewards or proper recognition of whoever manages to get an inventive idea through. It is a frequent arrangement, but it has its limitations, the most important of which is the fact that working towards innovation might easily get overshadowed by other daily jobs. When there is no structure to rely on, people might feel tempted to neglect their obligations or simply forget them as a result of insufficient stimulation.

 The second model is in many ways the opposite of the first one. Instead of banking on its natural emergence, innovation is literally engineered though well-documented procedures that every employee is aware of. Everything from job descriptions to company values underline the importance of moving forward and distribute responsibilities in this respect. Managers have methods to verify the effects and there is a tested way of pushing improvements on to the market. At one leadership training in Denver, somebody from the audience called it ritual innovation to point to its repeatable nature. The problem is that when you standardize innovation, it loses some of its natural qualities and becomes another incremental process.

 The last model is a bit of a mix of the previous two. Companies that rely on it set up a dedicated team whose job it is to foster product innovation or improve the organization. It has clear tasks that are removed from day-to-day operations so that they can focus on the future, rather than present maintenance. Whether they work on a single product, like a graphics tablet or a piece of software, or a larger solution, they have the comfort of having their minds concentrated and being supported by the management. The possible downside is that an organization can feel a bit split in half as some of the staff push forward, while others are expected to stick to what is now.