[#innovation - 10] Turning digital: an irreversible evolutionary step.

In the foreword of Shawn Dubravac's book "Digital Destiny" is a passage that has inspired me to give shape a thought I have had in mind since long.

"Whether or not we enter the digital age is not a choice anymore. Once man invented the sail, he could not go back to just using the oar. Once man invented the steam engine, he could not pretend that horses were the only way to travel. And once man discovered atomic energy, he had to come to grips with the benefits and risks of his new innovation - from power plants to bombs. Digital technology resides in the same realm as these transformational technologies, and we cannot undo what has been done. This is our digital destiny. This is not what might happen if we choose this road over another. This is what will happen regardless of which road we take." [Gary Shapiro]

Even if the point is not on startups, I find some interesting parallelism.

During the past three years I have been professionally involved in coaching startups, something that has progressively become more than a hobby. 

Mutually exchanging the daily experience in an established company and the agility of startups has provided me pretty much enlarged views.

Any time I attend to a new pitch, I am provided with a valuable marketing drill down, for free. These wannabe entrepreneurs get very close to their potential customers and give me hands on insight on their needs.

Apart from that, they struggle to satisfy those needs, with creativity and keen concreteness. They find new solutions to newly discovered problems, trying to make peoples' desires come true.

Well, if you work in an established company, doesn't it sound familiar to you?

This might sound quite granted for anybody having had a touch of Silicon Valley culture. But one month ago I attended a conference where, according to a survey submitted to a thousand managers, investing energy (not necessarily and only money) in startups is the ultimate driver.

After seven years of global economic crisis, who can afford old style, monolithic investment in research and innovation?

There's much talk about the opportunity, the vital need to listen to and possibly disclose in advance customers' needs to gain competitive advantage through innovative market value proposition.

And many companies appreciate appearing in articles related to startups contests as well. Looking related to startups sounds so cutting-edge.

But what's the real investment companies are making on such innovation opportunity?

I believe startups are the most concrete possibility to invest in innovation in a sustainable, scalable, affordable way. That means becoming able to capitalize internal assets and competence to raise the odds of startups to make their project successful ... and to turn that into new enterprise, valuable business.

Innovations from startups maybe won't save the world, but radical innovation will happen, whether established companies will recognize it or not. The digital revolution is in progress and startups are proving their sensitivity to its potential. They really are more than an opportunity.

I think developing the ability to give value to startups and gain from their innovative potential is no more an opportunity, but a necessary lever any manager should mature and have as a monkey wrench in their tool case.

Let's contribute to create new bridges among established companies and startups.

[#innovation - 09] The right attitude to manage innovation?

Well, doesn't really come to your mind that having as innovation manager a process addicted that has never had a credit card in his lifetime and has never made an online digital transaction might not be a proper investment on the future of your company and their people?
Doing that is like insisting on protecting the past of your company, not its future.
How much talent are you killing because of that? How much energy are you throwing in the garbage?
Well, you'd probably need a change in mindset.
Where is the digital revolution you like to talk about? Please!

 (Banksy)

[#limerick - 01] About change.

Even if change can make you feel scared,
it's probably come the time for you to dare.
Leave the former you behind
and just keep in mind
not to forget that, if you want to get the most out of you, you'll have to share.

Limerick, a form of poetry I came across while studying English.

[#strategy - 01] The Gaza conflict according to game theory.

Here I'll expose a few considerations the recent recrudescence of the Israeli/Palestinian led me to think of. I'll strive to abstract from the relative size of the forces, who's supposed to be right or wrong, the role and relative importance of involved allies, that of the United Nations, the external involved countries and the international press.

The Israeli/Palestinian contrast, if we try to read it according to the Theory of Games (Nash), emerges as a "competition" between two parties that dispute (sorry for the crude simplification) a "market" (territory). Specifically, it is a sequential game with a finite number of moves. Actually, both parties act as if the number of possible moves can only be limited; as if both actors expected that one day the conflict must necessarily end with one of two that definitely prevails over the other, which succumbs. Every war has this assumption. 
In this kind of "game", the strategy with the highest individual benefit looks the opportunistic/selfish one: each party wants to maximize their individual benefit at the expense of the other. That happens even if the game would allow, in case of collaboration (eg. a peace agreement), a major individual benefit for each of the contenders ("prisoner's dilemma"). 

                            

To have a possibility to the end of the conflict, the game should turn into an infinite sequence of moves. Like when two people get married: they sign a contract stating that their confrontation will last indefinitely (or until death of one or both partners or termination of the contract). This is a necessary precondition to enable collaboration as the best strategy for each party. In this kind of game the optimal strategy would be to pursue a higher collective benefit for the individual value of each of the interlocutors. 

How could that be? 
If I had an answer I would be a candidate for the Peace Nobel Prize. 
Of course having a common objective would be of help. 
I think this would probably be a good chance for Europe to start acting a unique, common foreign policy, gaining a third party role which would have some possibility to be recognised as neutral and balanced.

[#innovation - 08] When Vulcan meets Mercury.

How would it be if two cultures (apparently) antipodes could talk in the name of a common objective, namely to transform innovation into value?

In ancient Roman mythology, Vulcan and Mercury were both sons of Jupiter. They are used to acknowledging their different mutual perspectives.

Vulcan, with his strong, long lasting ‘managerial’ experience, gained in well-established business contexts, represents focus; that is constructive concentration. He is the self-confident master of processes related to incremental innovation, he strives ceaselessly to improve the value chain. Determined to pursue targets coherently with his tradition, his role and his responsibilities.

Mercury, wannabe entrepreneur and start-up founder, is on the other hand emblem of “harmony”, that is the participation to the world surrounding us.

As they meet, they realize naturally that they represent two essential, inseparable and complementary functions: Vulcan’s concentration is the necessary condition to enable Mercury’s metamorphosis; Mercury’s lightness (sometimes recklessness) is the necessary condition to allow Vulcan’s tiring efforts to become drivers of new meanings.

Injecting innovation effectively in established companies requires to take into consideration different times. Mercury’s and Vulcan’s times. A message of agility and spontaneity, expressed by persisting with accurate and tenacious adjustments. An instantaneous intuition that, as soon as formulated, becomes as conclusive as something that could not be expressed differently. But also the time that flows with no other interest than letting young ideas mature, detaching from any ephemeral impatience.

This meeting needs to be renewed daily and transformed into concrete value.

According to our professional and personal experience, there can be many chances to consider the start-up phenomenon, especially from a perspective of contamination of the dominating culture in established companies. It is worth sharing a common thought on how to create opportunities for those willing to experiment and recover the original confidence with uncertainty, chaos and change.

What will make the difference is the resolute, strategic will to observe the reality with an open and dedicated mind-set and to look at things around us with revealing eyes.

Massimo Pelaia, Daniele Pes

[#innovation - 07] Do not fear change.

Companies, like people, while growing and maturing, tend to develop habits.
Habits are part of a natural process through which we continuously learn to better do what we already can do.
Habits are comforting, because they give us the illusion the world around us won't change.

Companies, like people, are nevertheless daily exposed to an external context which is continuously changing.
And they have to (or can) promptly act to take the most advantage out of the opportunities these external contexts offer them.

If companies and people want to prosper, they both need not to fear change.

I suggest having a look at +Denise Jacobs TED entitled "Transmuting Fear" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7cXDrAvTgs

[#innovation - 06] Do you want to innovate in an established company? Then just create short circuits.

The more I struggle to set up an innovation engine inside the company I work for, the more I get the idea that it is not just about creating a dedicated Innovation function and having an Innovation Manager.

Innovating an established environment is all about CHANGE. And, probably, there is nothing as difficult as changing an environment where few are committed to change. If you're the CEO, believe you need to invest in innovation to set up a sustainable future for your company and think that by creating an Innovation function you've done your best ... well, probably no, that's not gonna be enough.
Such change is a cultural one, more than anything else.

The main mission of an Innovation function should be that of nurturing such cultural change and spread a new strategic vision among all of your colleagues. That's gonna be a long term investment. Your contribution as CEO is to promote such function with strong commitment and lead it by your concrete commitment and example. Change needs awareness and courage.

In an established company lots of good but also bad habits have settled along the way. The need for efficiency and dominating the complexity related to a growing company usually lead to a deep, structured hierarchy. The main consequence is that the distance between any individual contributor and the managers having the accountability to decide (e.g. to allocate the budget) has extended a lot. And the company has meanwhile lost its original agility.
Since the company still needs to support the usual, mainstream business (that which is financing innovation, as well), you cannot just "rape" the hierarchy you've already set up. That's where the innovation function might come to some help. Indeed, another mission is to shorten the hierarchical distance between individual contributors (or idea champions) and the high managerial layers, those in charge to decide about the deployment of any new valuable proposal. Doing so actually means that you've to become able to gather, classify, select and turn any simple idea to a project proposal in a very short time (no more than a few weeks, that's your differentiating value proposition). It takes agility and common sense.

Another short circuit to create, another distance to shorten, is about communication. Your function needs to become very effective at reducing the language distance between the problem solvers and internal investors. That means any new idea needs to be "translated", from the language in the feasibility domain to that of the customer/market's. An easy pain-solution-cost-benefits approach is gonna be effective: no more than 4 slides, which means a 5 minutes presentation.

Synthesis and communication will be keys.

DP