Innovation Delayed- Innovation Killed.
It has been awhile since my last post. This is because that balance thing erred on the side of a lot of work for the last couple of months. Perhaps I need a ghost writer: Nah, I like the excruciating pain of putting thoughts into paper in a way that has some impact. It is tough to compete with the constant media stream hitting our brains now days, you know.
In any case, here is the latest insight coming from a call I received from a friend of mine last night that was hired by a very large bank to create and run an innovation practice. She basically called to tell me that the bank was shutting the practice after about one year.
I can conjecture a lot of reasons why this may have happened, starting with the "real" reasons the sponsor of the practice decided to start it in the first place. Was it a play thing for the CEO? Did he want to use it to drive others out? Did he genuinely want to create new products? Did he want to just capture new knowledge? etc...
The first mistake is to have closed the practice; an Innovation practice needs a minimum of 3 years for it to show fruits. That aside, there is one reason that I know - for sure- sooner of later will have an impact on an innovation practice.
In most instances the existing corporate (and established) interests will attack and innovation practice; guaranteed. Moreover, many of those spearheading the attack (indirectly) will play the waiting game and delay engagement and many of them are employees with long corporate tenures that while may not be "civil servants" per se, have similar attitudes.
I have been fortunate to experience positive developments in the running and participating in our Innovation practice - now in its 5th year - but these wins have not come without intense, passion and energy-consuming battles that have left deep scars.
So, to tweak the old saying: "Justice delayed, justice denied, " "Innovation delayed IS innovation killed."
In any case, here is the latest insight coming from a call I received from a friend of mine last night that was hired by a very large bank to create and run an innovation practice. She basically called to tell me that the bank was shutting the practice after about one year.
I can conjecture a lot of reasons why this may have happened, starting with the "real" reasons the sponsor of the practice decided to start it in the first place. Was it a play thing for the CEO? Did he want to use it to drive others out? Did he genuinely want to create new products? Did he want to just capture new knowledge? etc...
The first mistake is to have closed the practice; an Innovation practice needs a minimum of 3 years for it to show fruits. That aside, there is one reason that I know - for sure- sooner of later will have an impact on an innovation practice.
In most instances the existing corporate (and established) interests will attack and innovation practice; guaranteed. Moreover, many of those spearheading the attack (indirectly) will play the waiting game and delay engagement and many of them are employees with long corporate tenures that while may not be "civil servants" per se, have similar attitudes.
I have been fortunate to experience positive developments in the running and participating in our Innovation practice - now in its 5th year - but these wins have not come without intense, passion and energy-consuming battles that have left deep scars.
So, to tweak the old saying: "Justice delayed, justice denied, " "Innovation delayed IS innovation killed."
Comments