David (crowdsourcing) vs Goliath (innovation)

Crowdsourcing is predicted to outshine innovation. According to one research, nearly 50% entrepreneurs/startups are developing “knowledge-as-a-service” models, and crowdsourcing (not innovation)is THE jump-starter. Crowdsourcing has crowdsortium. Innovation hasn’t.

Google crowdsources creating maps in India.

But, crowd-wisdom has limitations and might encounter black-swans in complex systems.

LEGO, which almost went bankrupt in 1990s, changed its “chief-brick,” started an adult line, appointed ambassadors and is back on track – open innovation+customer engagement.

Threadless, MyStarbucksIdea – crowdsourcing successes; Apple iPhone, Starbucks VIA, …  successes ignoring crowd-wisdom.

Crowd-wisdom as “corporate/customer democracy” is oxymoron – an intermediate layer filters/selects raw input.

Crowdsourcing + innovation = ?(needn’t be 0-sum game)

Innovative beer virtually and in poems

What costs $0.99, has been bought about 1 million times, and generated about $2 million and counting in revenues? An iBeer. That’s right, a simulated iPhone beer.

I would give all my fame for a pot of ale and safety,” wrote William Shakespeare in Henri  V. Ironically, beer consumption in his country is in sharp decline, although worldwide it increases, with China and America in lead.

And innovation in beer production or delivery? Beer launching fridge, temperature-sensitive Coors beer, beer-milk, beer for dogs, scratch-n-strip beer featuring nice ladies, … exist.

And the top 10 beer poems features Poe, Rumi, Baudelaire and others.

What plagiarism and innovation have in common

What do plagiarism and innovation have in common? Quite some.

Plagiarism is a copying of another’s IP without acknowledgment; innovation might be a copying of another’s IP, but with a poignant inspiration and tinge of creativity, not unlike a 9-year-old Estonian’s hacking into New York Times Op-Ed and “op-eding” embarrassing facts about Tom Friedman and the newspaper’s revenues.

A 17-year-old Nicholas took Google to task on its own ground and came out of it better off, earning himself the tag “next Mark Zuckerberg.” Innovation, plagiarism, or a bit of both?

Plagiarism, like innovation, can get creative in literature, at least.

Top 16 reasons of innovation failure

Is your company struggling with coming up and implementing innovative ideas?

Does innovation sound good for you but you still have to reap any tangible profit from those nice-looking, suggestive and “innovative” ideas that you hear from your employees, employers and read on Internet?

Do you think that innovation sounds good is but hard to capitalize on?

Before drawing any foregone conclusions and debunking anything dubbed innovative, please check whether your company’s approach to innovation is sound.

The seven deadly sins that choke out innovation in all sorts of companies and industries include:

  1. Thinking the answer is in here, rather than out there
  2. Talking about it rather than building it
  3. Executing when there is need for exploring
  4. Being smart
  5. Being impatient for the wrong things
  6. Confusing cross-functionality with diverse viewpoints
  7. Believing process will save your company

These are common in both brainstorming, analysis and execution stages of implementing innovative ideas.  Additional reasons why (supposedly) innovative ideas might fail are:

  1. Ideas don’t solve an important and relevant problem
  2. Ideas take too long to get to market or needs shift
  3. Ideas are poorly launched
  4. Understand the adoption cycle or barriers

In my previous post, a recap on Umair Haque‘s article,  following strategic factors yield failure if present during implementing and managing innovation in your company:

  1. Focusing on short-run numbers
  2. Applying surface economics
  3. Being strategy-blind
  4. Failing to see the right context
  5. Never having an ideal

Use this “innovation failure” checklist of factors to make sure your company is not trapped in or following one of the above factors.

How Not to Manage Innovation (Umair Haque)

Umair Haque is one of luminaries who deserves to be read and reread by all those who care for or envision a better, less consumerist and money-bogged future.

In the article below he shows his take how venture capitalists are stiffening innovation by focusing on numbers, short term goals, quick profits, etc. Read this englightening piece and look around for many examples. Below are his strategies (based on Jeremy Liew’s analysis) of Apple’s iPhone AppsStore outlining how not to manage innovation.

Focus on short-run numbers

When venture investors or middle managers act like, well, middle managers, innovation is likely to wither.

Apply surface economics

When venture investors or managers don’t look deeply at the economics of the markets and industries they are investing and competing in, the result is a hodge-podge, often unsuccessful innovation portfolio — one where potentially successful innovations are under-invested in, and almost certainly unsuccessful innovations are over-invested in.

Be strategy-blind

When venture investors or managers alike act like purely financial backers — instead of partners who acknowledge and encourage a durable, shared strategic interest — the disruptive potential of innovation is sapped.

Fail to see the right context

When investors or managers fail to place innovation in the right context, value is difficult to assess. Context is what makes numbers meaningful: it adds validity, reliability and accuracy to financial logic that is otherwise bereft of it.

Never have an ideal

The mistake isn’t particular to venture guys. It is what happens when we misapply the mechanics of finance to the art of innovation. The fallacy of inferring economic meaning from financial numbers is what’s bankrupting Sony, what eviscerated Detroit, and what, ultimately blew up the investment banks.

The full article is here.