Wednesday 30 May 2012
Thursday 24 May 2012
The Internal Startup
There are reasons startups are able to innovate better than established companies. They are smaller, leaner, more agile. Thay are hungrier - sometimes literally.
So can an established successful company create a level of innovation that will allow them to compete with their more nimble competitors, or are they all destined to become dinosaurs, either squishing little mammals beneath their clawed toes, or just dying off quietly.
One answer could be an internal startup. Here's how it could work:
All employees are invited to contribute ideas.
This should be open to everyone and every idea. Projects that directly relate to the existing business are probably more likely, but creative ideas that at first glance might seem ridiculous should not be excluded.
Ideas are refined into project proposals.
This is where ideas should be allowed to have sex with each other and produce cuter, more highly evolved idea babies. Again, everyone is encouraged to participate, contributing suggestions.
Everyone votes
I'm sure this will be controversial, and some managers will be insisting on making the final decision, but if you are really smarter than all of your employees combined, then why are you hiring so badly?
One or more projects are put into an incubator.
Each project will have a pair of founders who are able to display the same passion for the concept that any start up founder would have, short of having their house on the line. They will be able to "hire" staff by stealing the best personel from other projects. This might seem crazy, but there's no such thing as being partially committed. Members of the existing management team will play the part of investors, receiving regular updates and mentoring. Other than this though, the project will be left alone to develop a minimum viable product as quickly as possible.
Present and pivot
The startup team will present their idea to the rest of the company, and based on the feedback, the "founders" and "investors" will decide whether the project should continue, be re-integrated back into the main business, or be thrown back into a new round of ideas.
This model gives innovation a chance to grow within your organisation without being subjected to the usual processes, which are likely to dilute ideas, if not destroy them entirely. The visionaries within your company have something to aspire to. They get the opportunity to work on new ideas in a less structured environment for a period, without the associated risk that comes with working for a start up. You will be able to attract a different type of employee, encouraging innovation throughout the company. Who wouldn't want to work for a company that does this?
Of course not every project is going to produce your next killer product, but the willingness to fail is essential to innovation, and unlike a real world startup, the lessons learned from each project will then disseminate throughout your organisation, so in this case, there really is no such thing as failure.
What do you think? Could this work?
For some real world examples see:
Microsoft Gets A Clue From Its Kiddie Corps - The Daily Beast
Wells Fargo relies on internal ‘incubator’ to spur innovation - San Francisco Business Times
One answer could be an internal startup. Here's how it could work:
All employees are invited to contribute ideas.
This should be open to everyone and every idea. Projects that directly relate to the existing business are probably more likely, but creative ideas that at first glance might seem ridiculous should not be excluded.
Ideas are refined into project proposals.
This is where ideas should be allowed to have sex with each other and produce cuter, more highly evolved idea babies. Again, everyone is encouraged to participate, contributing suggestions.
Everyone votes
I'm sure this will be controversial, and some managers will be insisting on making the final decision, but if you are really smarter than all of your employees combined, then why are you hiring so badly?
One or more projects are put into an incubator.
Each project will have a pair of founders who are able to display the same passion for the concept that any start up founder would have, short of having their house on the line. They will be able to "hire" staff by stealing the best personel from other projects. This might seem crazy, but there's no such thing as being partially committed. Members of the existing management team will play the part of investors, receiving regular updates and mentoring. Other than this though, the project will be left alone to develop a minimum viable product as quickly as possible.
Present and pivot
The startup team will present their idea to the rest of the company, and based on the feedback, the "founders" and "investors" will decide whether the project should continue, be re-integrated back into the main business, or be thrown back into a new round of ideas.
This model gives innovation a chance to grow within your organisation without being subjected to the usual processes, which are likely to dilute ideas, if not destroy them entirely. The visionaries within your company have something to aspire to. They get the opportunity to work on new ideas in a less structured environment for a period, without the associated risk that comes with working for a start up. You will be able to attract a different type of employee, encouraging innovation throughout the company. Who wouldn't want to work for a company that does this?
Of course not every project is going to produce your next killer product, but the willingness to fail is essential to innovation, and unlike a real world startup, the lessons learned from each project will then disseminate throughout your organisation, so in this case, there really is no such thing as failure.
What do you think? Could this work?
For some real world examples see:
Microsoft Gets A Clue From Its Kiddie Corps - The Daily Beast
Wells Fargo relies on internal ‘incubator’ to spur innovation - San Francisco Business Times
Thursday 17 May 2012
Thursday 10 May 2012
Why we live in Story Space
Stories allow us to make connections between change and meaning.
Worthwhile stories always include change. Luke becomes a Jedi. The three little pigs move in together. A story without change is just a postcard. This character, is in this place, at this time. Who cares? Next time you find yourself disappointed by a story, ask yourself how the hero changed from the beginning to the conclusion. If the answer is that they didn't, then that might explain why you feel let down (The Descendants, I'm looking at you).
Good stories also make change inevitable, by forcing their character to change. Something happens, what Robert McKee calls the inciting incident, which creates a situation in which change is inevitable. When's Luke aunt and uncle are killed, he doesn't have the option to say "I just want to go back to the way things were". We know Luke is going to change, and we want to know what's going to happen.
Change alone though is not enough to make a story. Even inescapable change is not exclusive to stories. But only humans (that I know of) attach meaning to change, and is this meaning that defines the story.
A story begins with a premise. This is the question that the story must answer. But it must give more than an answer, it must also offer an explanation. The power of the story comes from the gravity of the question and the insight of the explanation.
That is why we live in story space.
Worthwhile stories always include change. Luke becomes a Jedi. The three little pigs move in together. A story without change is just a postcard. This character, is in this place, at this time. Who cares? Next time you find yourself disappointed by a story, ask yourself how the hero changed from the beginning to the conclusion. If the answer is that they didn't, then that might explain why you feel let down (The Descendants, I'm looking at you).
Good stories also make change inevitable, by forcing their character to change. Something happens, what Robert McKee calls the inciting incident, which creates a situation in which change is inevitable. When's Luke aunt and uncle are killed, he doesn't have the option to say "I just want to go back to the way things were". We know Luke is going to change, and we want to know what's going to happen.
Change alone though is not enough to make a story. Even inescapable change is not exclusive to stories. But only humans (that I know of) attach meaning to change, and is this meaning that defines the story.
A story begins with a premise. This is the question that the story must answer. But it must give more than an answer, it must also offer an explanation. The power of the story comes from the gravity of the question and the insight of the explanation.
Consider "Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love and live happy ever after". Boring.
What about adding "because they both grow up and understand what love means?". Less boring? Well maybe, maybe not, but now it's a story. This is what happened, and this is why.
We live in story space because we all know that change is inevitable, but we all long to find meaning and understanding. Without this, change will sweep away all of our efforts, and we will leave the world neither better or worse than we found it. The power of explanation is the basis of out hope, that life might not be pointless after all.
That is why we live in story space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)