Blog

Innovation is the combination of invention with adoption. Without adoption, innovation is simply invention. Yet often, invention is interchanged with innovation. The primary focus is usually technology. But new technologies do not determine successful innovations. Business models do. To innovate successfully, we must design an end state with strategic possibilities that are Desirable, Feasible, and Viable (DFV). Achieving this end state requires taking a human-centered approach to innovation. A human-centered approach begins with relating and empathizing with the customers that we are designing for. It involves immersing ourselves in the customers’ world (this is where ethnographic research may come in handy) to understand their pains and the jobs to be done to create an attractive value proposition and business model. Ultimately, an innovation strategy is required.

Organizations today face many challenges, and innovation is paramount. Although organizations accept the need to innovate, for some, their definitions of innovation, strategy, and design differ. Hence, there is a gap between the future possibilities required for success and what is delivered. At these organizations, a scientific approach is favored instead of a human-centered approach as the appropriate innovation strategy method. The challenge with using a scientific approach is that it filters out creative possibilities, which could offer exponential growth because the initial data points to support these strategic possibilities are unavailable. Eventually, a strategic possibility that, at best, offers incremental growth is settled upon, and these organizations lose out to competitors or peers who focus on a strategic possibility that offers exponential growth.

To address these gaps around innovation, I pursued and earned the Designing Strategy certificate from IDEO U a few weeks ago. The program is designed to teach a strategy process that is both human-centered and business-focused to help me create and act on strategies for my team and organization. I learned to combine analytical rigor with creativity to close the innovation gap and deliver strategic possibilities that offer sustainable growth. In the spirit of sharing and creating value, here are my top seven learnings from the Designing Strategy course.

7 Key Learnings From the IDEO U Designing Strategy Course to Help Organizations Close their Innovation Gap

1. Strategy starts with defining and framing a problem. Without a problem or challenge, there is no strategy; hence, there is no innovation. A good strategy process needs a well-framed problem with context and reference around the customer, company, and competition. Framing a problem correctly is critical to solving the right problem. A poorly framed problem could lead to solving the wrong problem and a waste of time and resources. A challenge I faced with correctly framing a problem was restricting myself from including a pre-emptive solution in the problem statement. It was a bias. I had an idea of what I thought the solution to my challenge might be, so I framed my problem statement to include or get to that solution. This approach was wrong. And it took a few trials for me to learn how to reframe my problem statement using the How Might We (HMW) approach, which proved effective. Funny enough, some weeks ago, while watching a YouTube video on Mastering the Art of Strategy by Richard Rumelt, the author of Good Strategy / Bad Strategy, Richard also favored the concept that a strategy must always begin with a problem. If you do not have a problem worth solving, keep doing what you are doing. There is no need to change.

2. Creating a great strategic possibility requires generating many possibilities. Thomas Edison once said, “To have a great idea, have lots of them.” However, generating many possibilities thrives best in environments that welcome idea generation without immediate critique. Restraining from immediately critiquing ideas fosters creativity and provides the freedom for others to build upon rather than poke upon ideas. Some ideas may be extreme, with opposing views and tensions, while others may flip assumptions and analogies. Regardless, welcoming many ideas or possibilities is necessary to generate a strategic possibility with solid Where to Play (WTP) and How to Win (HTW), concepts from the book Playing to Win by Roger Martins. Sure, we may worry that not immediately critiquing ideas may delay the strategy process or worse, lead to several flawed creative ideas. But that may be a productivity fallacy. Sometimes, the best ideas require time to be sketched out and are built upon. This means the idea is explored with an open mind, and others may be able to address the weaknesses in the idea. The process may start slowly, but it ultimately provides better possibilities, which could save time in the long run. In an HBR article, 3 Fallacies That Inhibit Creativity by Pronita Mehrotra et al., she explains the intellectual fallacy of poking holes in ideas. Having an open mind to all ideas allows others to gain the courage to explore the edges – where creativity lies. Several authors, including Seth Godin, author of Purple Cow, have also stated that creativity lies at the edges. Without going to the extremes, to the edges, we may be unable to push ourselves to generate creative possibilities. Just a few years back, we may not have thought of Chat GTP, self-driving automobiles, or AWS. These ideas may have all seemed impossible or ridiculous initially (ideas we only see in Sci-Fi movies) until the possibility was fully sketched. Today, these possibilities are the norm. Like with everything in life, there is a balance. Eventually, some possibilities would work, and others will fall aside. But at least we can say all ideas were welcomed and explored.

3. A good innovation strategy has all its elements well connected and interlinked like a chain. The Winning Aspiration element connects with the Where to Play and How to Win elements, which connect with the Capabilities element, which connects with the Management Systems element. I found understanding the capabilities and limitations of a strategy to be profound. To help manage the limitations to strategic possibilities, we need to ask What Would Have To Be True (WWHTBT) about our customers, company (capabilities, costs, supply chain, value chain, etc.), and competition rather than what is true.

4. Doing nothing is also a strategic possibility. I found this insight profound. Not only for strategy generation but also for life. We are making a choice, even when we don’t make a choice. Sometimes, we do nothing out of fear of making the wrong choice, without realizing that doing nothing is also a choice.

5. Validating assumptions that drive the strategic possibilities is a requirement for choosing a possibility to implement. A great possibility is highly desirable, feasible, and viable. And it requires tests to validate all three factors. A good test informs us, teaches us, and prepares us for the downstream impacts that may lie ahead. We may be surprised to learn that an assumption we thought would be true isn’t, and an assumption we thought wouldn’t be true is true. There are many ways to test assumptions. Sometimes, opting for a low-fidelity test to validate assumptions rather than a high-fidelity test can also be effective. I found this learning hard to understand. I needed prompts to help me think of a low-fidelity test. And I did not quite understand it. I used to think, what is the point of testing quickly if you test wrongly or no one participates? I had associated testing quickly with not testing effectively. This logic was flawed. As I have learned, there are several low-fidelity tests that can be just as effective for validating assumptions. And sometimes, you want to have several types of tests available to choose from, ranging from low-fidelity to high-fidelity tests, to help validate assumptions.

6. Take others along on the innovation journey. I do not have to do the entire innovation strategy process alone. Generating possibilities, understanding assumptions, and validating those assumptions through tests do not have to be a one-person job. It is best not to take all the tests but rather allow the skeptics of the proposed strategic possibilities to design and run tests to show they are correct. Bringing in skeptics to run tests can be a good change management technique. It becomes easier to get buy-in from a skeptic when the tests they conducted show results that favor the proposed strategic possibilities. And who’s better to disprove an assumption than a skeptic? This reminded me of the 2nd Law in the book, 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene: “Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies.” Enemies in this quote would mean skeptics, and friends would mean those who agree with us. However, all tests are only credible when there is a clear sense of what success and failure might look like. Success metrics to prove that a test failed or succeeded must be available.

7. Sourcing capabilities may be challenging, yet it should not limit our ability to choose a strategic possibility. Sometimes, we may have the capabilities to develop our strategic possibilities, while other times, we might have to source the capabilities for the best strategic possibility that we have. Only when we lack the capabilities and ability to source the capabilities required should we rule out that strategic possibility.