It is such a wide and varied field that I find it fascinating, some rich pickings that I’ve appreciated or used recently include:

• Stealing like an artist;
• Creative Climate; and
• Open Innovation.

My current “best bet” for considering innovation and how to encourage it, however, is based in the concepts of chaos theory. Chaos theory starts with the idea of complex systems being built of large numbers of independent actors communicating actors. The individuals adjust how they respond in response to their environment, their goals and the demands placed on them. There is no simple rule that says take “A” action and the result will be “B” when dealing with this sort of system. Action needs to be framed as adjustments in the environment, rules and goals of the individuals and then the result continuously examined to see what it achieved. The adjustment is then iterative in nature.

To bring this back to the original question, therefore: Is innovation culture or process based? How do we best encourage and profit from innovation at an organisational level? The best advice would seem to be to assume that it is both. The creative climate of the organisation will influence how people behave, and will the rules and processes that are in place which constrain or enable individuals to act. Thus, to be innovative in the long term you need to have a mindset of making sure that people are encouraged to question: Why do this? How else might it be done? Who else might have done this sort of thing, and how did they approach it? How might new technology change what we want to do? The list goes on.

Once people come up with ideas then if they are to become innovations for a company then they must have the tools available to them to take it forwards, and especially to find other people in the or outside organisation that can help. In time, if an organisation really does want innovations, then they will have to find ways to adapt the mindset, rules and drivers of the organisational environment so as to encourage rather than discourage innovation. There are lots of techniques and ideas for approaching this. It is important to remember, however, that you are dealing with a chaotic system – beware unexpected outcomes.

We will be publishing some posts as they are updated on Twitter and LinkedIn, to indicate that they have been refreshed.

Thank you for your patience.

On a slightly more serious note, however, it seems that data centre technology does need a serious green overhaul. I have heard much about virtualisation being a green technology, and the same for cloud computing. If it needs this sort of data centre infrastructure, with all the energy and environmental issues that will be associated with this, how can this be sold as a “green” technology? The truth seems to be that “green” technology is simply a way of shifting the problem and responsibility for it to someone else. That may not be an issue – if you check as part of the process that their approach “green” approach is sufficient. When these data centres are outsourced and are sited in various third world countries, as they may well be in the future, then it is likely that Corporate Social Responsibility will come into play.

Another interesting observation was around the possibility of mal-adaptation. This is another consideration that might be worthy of reflection in a more general sense. Given that the future is uncertain, but that action is needed now then it is possible that you will try to change to adapt to the situation as you expect it to be in the future. It is possible, and indeed likely, that your original plan will not exactly reflect the actual future. You have a risk, therefore, that you will be investing for a future that never occurs – leading to loss. There are ways to minimise this risk, in terms of sensitivity analysis and staying aware of the actual situation on an on-going basis. In an uncertain world, however, it is probably true that you will not be able to eliminate this risk entirely unless you don’t invest in  anything at all.

The last point I’ll write about now is the most subtle, and possibly the most relevant point of all. That is one of language use. The comment was to “Keep the language aspirational.” There is so little in the world that is certain, and so you can’t be sure how much is needed or how well that will fit in with the overall picture. It would be very easy in this, and many other, situations to slip into negative language that will turn off and demotivate people. It would be possible to set SMART objectives in this case, such as reducing waste by 20% by the end of 2015. It can be more useful, however, to have aspirational targets: No waste; Totally renewable energy sources etc. It can then be accepted that goal is to gets as close as possible to the target, and as long as there is continuous movement in the right direction that is good. SMART objectives may fit in under this, but the direction of travel is key.

The sections are:

• The Quality Toolbook: http://syque.com/quality_tools/toolbook/toolbook.htm
• Tools of the trade: http://syque.com/quality_tools/tools/tools.htm

There are many other potentially useful sections but these are the ones that really caught my attantion. If you need a summary of quality improvement approaches then this looks like a good place to browse.

http://www.tutorialspoint.com/cmmi/index.htm

I thought it was worth sharing because it goes down into a little more detail. If you printed out everything on the site it is just over 20 pages worth of information, and it has been presented in a fairly clear way. Much of the material seems to have been copied from the main CMMi site material, but the summarising and presentation is useful.

 The reason for this is that I intended the spreadsheet to be used early in the lifecycle, where it is often difficult to do a detailed and realistic risk analysis. I would suggest that at this point it is more likely to be successful, therefore, to consider the more general ideas of what will introduce complexity and how reliable the productivity estimates are likely to be.

 In later stages of the project, however, much more is likely to be understood about the specific risks that a project is carrying. At this point I would agree that estimating the risk of the project and including this as part of the project estimation, planning and tracking process is very important. I have previously mentioned the idea of a “Cost of Risk” assessment without elaborating what I meant by it. It seems worthwhile, therefore, to expand on it.

 It is important to consider all risks’ probability and impact. These are often considered in terms of “High, Medium and Low”, without actually detailing what really means. This makes it relatively easy to discuss and come up with an idea of priority for what to address next in risk management. It is possible to be slightly more sophisticated than this by putting numeric values against the values, and producing a product to focus the discussion numerically. It is also then possible, assuming that a log of all risks in a project exists, to provide a metric of the total project risk. This can be very useful in managing and comparing projects.

 There is a further sophistication, however, that is often worthwhile. This is based on estimating the cost to the project should the risk trigger and become an issue. This is usually done in addition to the “High, Medium and Low” impact, with guidance provided on the relationship between them. The cost of the risk being carried then is the product of the cost and the probability of it occurring. In this case the probability needs to be a numeric value from 0 to 1, such as a percentage. If a low probability risk is deemed to have a 5% chance of occurring during the project life, and the cost of recovering from it is £1M then the cost of risk is £50k. This figure can be very useful when deciding on what risk management activity is appropriate, and whether the project is viable. Let me know if you would find it worthwhile me producing a spreadsheet that embodies this. If I get sufficient interest I will do so for a future article.

 What solution is proposed?

 The idea seems to be to treat Management as a localised research project. If you have a theory on what is going on then note it down and treat it as a “thesis”. Think through what evidence you have that things really are as you perceive them to be. Think if there is evidence that doesn’t fit with your thesis. If all the evidence you have indicates that your thesis is correct then think though what action you might take to confirm or deny the thesis.  What challenges might someone else present to your theory? What other theories might explain the observations you make? Can you differentiate what is actually going on?

 If your theories, with modification as needed, seem to stack up then start to take some action. In doing so, however, remember that you are acting on a theory and look for on-going evidence of success or otherwise according to the theory. Thus a cycle of thinking and acting is created as the change is initiated and rolled out. It is still possible, and usually appropriate, to adjust the activities as the overall project moves forwards. The whole leads to a management approach that is more thoughtful, and hopefully more likely to be successful.

 This can be extended, however, in the consideration of IT. When applying IT to a situation and in the management of IT issues a similar approach can be applied. I spend some of my time helping to resolve performance problem, and here an evidence and thesis based approach can be near critical to success. The same can be true in other areas, however, such as debugging complex problems or approaching a novel design issue.

 All of this does have one issue though. Time doesn’t always allow a through evidence-based approach to every situation and circumstance. Thus, part of the trick is knowing when to apply the approach and when not. It is worth considering after the fact consideration of the situation even if it is too late to make a difference to the current situation. In this case, you are considering the need for lessons for the future rather than steering current action.

 I’d be interested in feedback on how often people use evidence in their management and IT based activities. I would be particular interested in stories of successful, or otherwise, use of evidence. Alternatively, if you would like to hear more let me know.

• Not being quite sure what the root cause is – management approach, technology etc.
• Having no clear route to a complete solution, as distinct from a temporary work around.
• Having to “try it and see” to solve the problem and continually adjust approach depending on the results.

Why do I assert that performance problems are often in this category though? There tends to be a definite issue that you can point to, and you will know when it is “solved” because the system will be performing well. The reason is that usually the defined performance problem is, in effect, the proverbial  tip of the iceberg. It may be possible  to just solve that fairly easily, such as add more hardware.  It is rarer, however, for this to be a complete solution as there is almost always implications and subtleties of stakeholder needs and expectations that this won’t address.

What to do then? There are  wide range of solutions. One important step, however, can be to form some form of map of the problems, potential solutions and how they are related. There are various defined techniques but start with something simple:

• Write on sticky notes all of the symptoms you can think of. (e.g. Too slow a response time.)
• Write on a different set of notes all the solutions you can think of. (e.g. Buy more CPU.)
• Write on yet another set all of the constraints you can think of for solving the issues. (e.g. Budget)
• Group these together and draw lines between them to show relationships.

This is based on a technique called “Causal mapping”, for which there is support software available, though I f. The process tends to help clarify what really needs solving, and how you might go about solving it. The examples above are about performance problems, but the idea can work for a much wider range of issues. Try it, and let me know what you think and how you get on.

10 Questions for Effective Networking

http://www.success121.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=34

The article is written by a “professional coach” who discusses the benefits of value-based questioning when networking. It seems a better approach than the standard sales-lead approach, and may be useful in breaking the ice with potential clients for the future. I found it interesting, see if you do.