Collaborating for Innovation
11th July 2006 by Carol Kinsey Goman
For generations, Proctor & Gamble generated most of its phenomenal growth by innovating from within. They hired the best global talent and built huge research facilities. And for a long time, that strategy worked just fine. But in 2000, new appointed CEO A.G. Lafley dispensed with the company’s age-old “invent it ourselves” philospphy and created a “connect and develop” approach which uses the world as a giant idea factory.
Today the company searches everywhere for proven technologies, packages, and products it can improve, scale up, and market. Now the company collaborates on a massive, geography-defying scale with suppliers, compettitiors, scientists, and entrepreneurs.
P&G isn’t the only organization looking outward. According to IBM’s Global CEO Study 2006, leaders today are increasingly seeking innovative ideas beyond company walls. In direct contrast to past copporate doctrine, where innovation was considered too critical and proprietary to involve outsiders, major strategic alliances are quickly becoming the new competitive edge. As a client of mine put it, “The competition can hire away individual talent and the can duplicate our processes - but our intricate networks of relationships with employees, customers, global partners, regulatory bodies, and suppliers is ours alone. It can’t be copied. Every organization has to start theirs from scratch.”
July 13th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
I hate to be a nitpicker. And I don’t like being negative.
But after reading this post, I think the only thing I understand is that it’s about Procter and Gamble and IBM.
We’re supposed to be communicators.
Your headline contains two of the most overused cliches in business for crying out loud.
Again, I don’t mean to be negative. But this is the blogging world; we’re supposed to be different here.
Impress us with your message, not your words.
–
Now, to your message. I believe what you’re saying is strategic partnerships are the new way toward success. If that’s wrong, do correct me.
So I wanted to ask, what is it you wanted to say about that?
And what does this mean for the future of business? Will all companies soon be relying on talent from multiple countries and partnerships with other entities?
I’m trying to get a grasp on this thing here.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I didn’t know about this - and as a communicator I think it’s important to keep up. But more than that, I think this is the kind of “heads up” that should be given employees to let them know then about forces that are impacting global organizations. If your organization is already collaborating with customres, suppliers, competitors for new products and services your audience should know that they are part of a larger trend. And if your organization isn’t already using exteral sources for “innovative assistance,” it may well be doing so in the near future.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Huh? Is this post and comment being translated from Japanese?
July 13th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
This post me of my favorite book on business communication — “Why do business people speak like idiots?”
July 14th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Believe me, nobody believes in the need for communicators to use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation more than I do. But I’m disappointed in the nasty tone folks are using to make their points — and I find it ironic that many of the criticisms include typos like the one above.
July 16th, 2006 at 4:21 am
Innovation, collaboration…These are big themes in my organization today. And so I am well aware that our senior executives are very increasingly tantalized with the notion of ‘buying’ innovation. As I reflect on my personal circumstances, I realize that we’ve seen this strategic approach for many years in service organizations, pharmaceuticals and technology companies. (Remember all those folks who got rich selling their start-ups?) Frankly, it makes sense. Big institution culture doesn’t necessarily lend itself to creativity and innovation. After all, the strictures of a company’s day-to-day life often make it impossible to bring anything forwarad that doesn’t smack of the status quo. (I say this knowing full well that many companies have formal programs to encourage innovation. In fact, I’ve researched a couple of ’successful’ initiatives. Of course, that requires us to define ’success’ but for the moment let’s push past that to consider a more fundamental issue. A formal program to encourage innovation? Doesn’t that smell a little like teaching Dada to art students?) So instead of really grappling with the innovation-vs-current-culture struggle, why not simply buy innovation? And if the organization is smart and lucky, the new entity might avoid being overwhelmed by the purchasing company’s wiring and offer new synapses that benefit the whole new entity.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:14 am
When I worked for Mattel in the mid-1980s, the company had a huge team of toy developers. Yet several times a year, the senior staff gathered to hear pitches from outside toy inventors. Some were big companies with which Mattel worked regularly; others were individuals who were able to get on the schedule. The company recognized that all the good ideas were not constrained within our walls. Some of the company’s most successful launches came from outsiders presenting their ideas at these events.
The “not-invented-here” syndrome can have serious consequences for organizations. It was Apple that fell way behind by refusing to add a hard drive to its computers because the hard drive was not an Apple innovation. Companies are well-served when they throw open the doors and windows to innovation (cliche or not) to the outside world. In fact, “co-creation” is all the rage these days.
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:31 am
While getting creative input from outside or inside is not really that ground breaking - I think there is something more going on. Many more people outside now respond better to an invitation to engage; it’s partly because the growth of communicating using screen technology removes the restraints of time, geography, cost and also better records individual comments or ‘transaction’. Both word of mouth and collaboration is thus accelerating.
I was struck by this comment - good for todays trends.
‘Tell me - I’ll forget; Explain to me - I’ll remember; Involve me - I’ll understand’
James
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:16 am
Robert - Sorry about the typo. Although, although if you were up on trends you’d understand that the blogging community doesn’t care about typos (a true blogger rule of thumb). the book I mention is a real book, and a really insightful one at that. The point is — language and tone are the tools we use. And if we cannot communicate in plain, easy-to-understand language, then we are lost as a profession.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743269098/sr=8-1/qid=1153674831/ref=sr_1_1/002-9107304-5776868?ie=UTF8
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:25 am
All of this reminds me of one of my favourite Japanese proverbs,
“None of us are as smart as all of us.”
Keep collaborating.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:12 am
… or you could consider one of my favorite sayings found on a “demotivational” poster produced by Dispare.com http://despair.com/meetings.html
“Neither of us is as dumb as all of us together.”
People — lighten up.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
What strikes me about the original post is a difference in ownership and copyright. When an employee creates an innovation during the workday, that innovation is owned by the company.
When a large company partners with smaller suppliers and strategic alliances, they often commandeer those innovations (and copyrights) - leaving the entrepreneur with a lawsuit that they cannot afford to fight. In fact, several large corporations state that the supplier has to ‘relinquish any and all rights’ to their innovations as the entry cost of even being a supplier.
As communicators, that should be sending off strong signals regarding ethics and culture. Check out your supplier communications and contracts to see if your company is a bully.
Once an innovation has joined the collective knowledge pool: where did it come from, where does it go? It brings a new level of transparency to communications - yet how to protect the innovation and the rightful party(s)?