Commentary by Michael Cyger

I posted today on the iSixSigma Blogosphere entitled "Durable and Great." It has to do with your company becoming both durable (good at execution) and great (good at innovation). The two need to go hand in hand. Read "Durable and Great" here.

David Silverstein, CEO of Breakthrough Management Group,recently became a "Experts-In-Residence" contributing author to Inc.com. In his premiere column, David talks about how traditional process excellence isn’t enough -- you have to differentiate yourself from your competition. And that requires an innovation excellence toolbox. Read "It’s All About Convergence" here.

Those that rate their efforts most effective say they rely on a clear strategy and systematic methodologies, according to a new survey of 1,000 business professionals released in the July/August 2007 issue of iSixSigma Magazine.

The result I expected to read from this survey: More than 900 of the respondents, or 91 percent, said their companies are engaging in innovation. That makes sense. Every company should say that innovation is important.

The result that surprised me: Within that group, 81 percent of those that rated their program "effective" said they had a clear strategy driving their innovation efforts. A similar percent of "effective" programs also use a systematic process or methodology for innovation. I thought these were really high numbers, but I’m pleased to see them.

It’s a really interesting study. If you subscribe to iSixSigma Magazine, you receive immediate access to the digital edition, which allows you to view the archives and read this story (if you do, be sure to also read the issue from 2005 entitled Six Stories of Innovation with Six Sigma, as it has a great research section also).

Also in this study:

• Metrics that define a company’s innovation strategy
• Measuring the success of innovation efforts
• The resources companies use to aid in innovation
• The companies considered to be especially innovative, and why

I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "All Companies Need Innovation; Hasbro Finds a New Magic" (2/26/07, page B1). I immediately got excited to read that title because a) most of my formidable years were spent playing Hasbro games and b) I’m a proponent of innovation.

Carol Hymowitz (innthelead@wsj.com), the author of the "In the Lead" regular column, reported as follows:

To spur innovation, Hasbro managers keep in touch with a global network of game inventors, do online surveys of customers and observe thousands of children and adults playing games developed in a new lab called GameWorks at the division’s headquarters.

Everything sounds great to me so far:

• Hasbro practices innovation outsourcing (a form of open innovation) - looking to great minds outside the company to find the next big idea in games. Many companies are doing this, including P&G with their Connect+Develop initiative. Why not for games as well?
• Hasbro practices Voice of the Customer (VOC) techniques, which translate customer statements into measurable critical to quality (CTQ) characteristics that can then be used to improve current games and launch new games.
• Hasbro practices ethnography. Ethnography "finds ways to ’live with’ selected customers to get an in-depth understanding of their needs and how they use a product or service in real life," as described in "VOC Advances: New Paths to Understanding Customers."

Then reality sank in. Ms. Hymowitz delivers the real-world example, to back up her premise, I had been waiting for. I had hoped the example would take me from theory to application, which was the reason I spent the last two minutes reading the article:

Hectic schedules and time pressures are prompting Hasbro to launch "express" versions of Monopoly, Sorry and Scrabble. Unlike the standard versions, which can take hours to play, the express games have their own rules and can be wrapped up in 20 minutes or less.

Instead of talking about "innovation" Ms. Hymowitz is talking about "evolution." Ask five people what the definition of "innovation" is and you’ll get seven definitions, none of which include incremental improvement. Most include "the creation of something new" or "a new idea that can be sold." Most would also agree that "evolution" could be defined as "something passing by degree to a different stage" or a "change in traits while the main remains the same."

Looking at other industries, is it innovative to see that millions of people enjoy their iPods and their cell phones and realize that a combination cell phone/music player would be of interest to potential customers? Or is it just evolution of a business with new products and services?

Every new product and service launched by companies around the world is not innovative by definition. They can be new and they can grow revenue for a company, but that doesn’t mean they’re innovative. By calling them such reduces the truly innovative products and services that have come before, such as the light-bulb, television and Velcro®.

Sound off. What do you think? Should innovation be synonymous with evolution? Let me know.

Jessica Harper, managing editor of iSixSigma Magazine, and I have been discussing the upcoming July/August issue of the magazine focused on innovation. We had what we thought was a simple idea for the cover story: find a company that has used systematic innovation to grow revenue, and highlight who they are and what methodology/framework they used.

This seemed easy enough. After all, "innovation" is all around us. New business models are popping up every year:

• Dell flips PC market upside down with direct-to-consumer PC sales.
• Apple does exactly the same thing, this time to the music industry with the launch of iTunes.com.
• Netflix, yet again, does the same thing, but for the movie rental business with no late fees and direct to mailbox delivery.

New business models often arise from people saying, "Why does it have to be done that way? Why can’t we do it this way?" And they lead a revolution. Not much of a system to it.

We looked at product innovation, which is sometimes different than business model innovation. There are systematic methodologies for being innovative. Proctor & Gamble for example, a company often cited by business magazines for their product innovation, has launched a slew of new products in recent years:

• Instead of focusing on selling more toothpaste (which I’m sure they do also), listening to Voice of the Customer leads them to focus more efforts on teeth whitening and so they develop and launch Crest teeth-whitening strips.
• Swiffer
• Tide with Febreze

But sometimes simple ideas - such as finding a company using systematic innovation to launch new products - are much harder to execute than anticipated. We found example after example of companies that are "innovative" and/or are launching new and "innovative" products and services, but we’ve found few that are using a systematic process for innovation.

The companies that are using a systematic process for innovation (like TRIZ) won’t talk. I guess when you have the "golden hen" it’s difficult to share the story of how an egg was laid.

What do you think? Do you know companies that are using systematic innovation to develop new products and services? Let me know.

Companies like Humana, Coca-Cola, AMD, Citigroup and Cargill are all establishing the position of Chief Innovation Officer (CIO - unfortunately, confusingly similar to Chief Information Officer). It appears that companies are recognizing that the development of new ideas, new products, new services and new strategies requires a concerted effort led by a dedicated person with clear responsibilities.

Breakthrough Management Group is now offering a two-day course to help would-be and current Chief Innovation Officers. It is designed for executives with enterprise-wide innovation responsibility, VP’s/Directors of R&D and corporate strategy, and executives who are responsible for driving organizational innovation. Particularly relevant for the Real Innovation audience is the focus on "Establishing a Systematic Innovation Process," including an innovation roadmap, metrics discussion, processes, techniques and tools for achieving repeatable and predictable innovation. You can learn more here.

During the last 10 years The TRIZ Journal established itself as the leading online publisher of information about TRIZ, systematic innovation, and creativity-related articles and tools. The TRIZ Journal has developed and promoted the methodology’s use, the functionality of its tools and lasting links between readers and business professionals around the world. This tenth anniversary is a good time to recognize those who have made the publication such a success.

Most responsible for the success of the TRIZ Journal are Dr. Ellen Domb and Dr. Michael Slocum. Their peer review and editorial guidance will continue as they work with the new editor of RealInnovation.com and TRIZ-Journal.com, Katie Barry. I’d also like to recognize Dr. Domb and Dr. James Kowalick for having the vision to found The TRIZ Journal when the Internet was just burgeoning. All three pioneers are great TRIZ professionals and great people, and I’m proud to be associated with them.

It is clear that from the beginning, The TRIZ Journal has worked closely with the TRIZ community to make sure it delivered the most useful information available. It would never be where it is today without all the authors who volunteered their time, energy and insight. Thank you.

Since its start with just two readers, The TRIZ Journal has grown to tens of thousands of readers worldwide. With the recent acquisition of The TRIZ Journal by CTQ Media and subsequent re-launch of the website design (with additional functionality, tools and features), it gives me great pleasure to commemorate the history of this valuable publication. Thank you for visiting and reading The TRIZ Journal.

Looking to the future, The TRIZ Journal plans to continue the course set 10 years ago. It will provide the most relevant and useful information on TRIZ and creative problem solving with an array of articles, tools and information unrivaled on the Internet.

Michael Cyger is CEO of CTQ Media LLC and iSixSigma.com.

Michael is the founder of iSixSigma and has been involved with Six Sigma since GE's initial deployment in 1995. As an employee, Green Belt, Master Black Belt, and as part of a deployment team, Michael has been involved in every aspect of a Six Sigma deployment at companies including GE Power Systems, GE Capital Commercial Equipment Finance, GE Capital Corporate and Citigroup. Michael is a graduate of the prestigious GE Edison Engineering Program, and received a bachelor's in engineering from U.C. Santa Barbara and a master's in engineering from U.C. Berkeley.

Michael is a member of the International Society of Six Sigma Professionals.

Dilbert and his pointy haired boss tackled two topics that are near and dear to my heart: Six Sigma and innovation. In one fell swooop, he reduced both topics to buzz words and hype. While I’m sure there are many people who may agree with Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, I’m hoping this site has a few things to say in rebuttal.

What are your thoughts?

On Tuesday Chairman and CEO Samuel J. Palmisano announced that IBM would invest $100 million on ten new and innovative ideas that resulted from an online brainstorming session called InnovationJam.

InnovationJam, which was billed as the "largest-ever brainstorming session," is said to have brought together 150,000 people in 104 countries. It included two 72-hour sessions and produced more than 46,000 ideas. Now that’s a lot of digital Post-it notes.

The top ten ideas that were selected near-, mid- and long-term development include:

1. Smart Healthcare Payment Systems
2. Simplified Business Engines
3. Real-time Translation Services
4. Intelligent Utility Networks
5. 3D Internet
6. "Digital Me"
7. Branchless Banking for the Masses
8. Integrated Mass Transit Information System
9. Electronic Health Record System
10. "Big Green"

How is IBM going to be executing on this innovation? Their press release said, "Consistent with the open, collaborative nature of innovation, IBM intends to partner with multiple clients and universities to bring these ideas to market quickly." I seriously hope they’re considering more than just outsourcing as their path to innovation success.

A great deal has been published about innovation in the popular press lately. And very little of it has any substance. If 65% of global chief executives and other business leaders believe they will have to make fundamental changes in the way their businesses operate in the next two years and innovation was identified as a critical factor, why are so few of them looking for a proven, systematic way to launch new products and services? Perhaps it’s because they’re not aware that there are frameworks and structures to do so.

The same was true for the quality profession years ago – 20 years ago to be exact. But a visionary CEO by the name of Bob Galvin gave an engineer named Bill Smith the room he needed to develop a new methodology for ridding their organization of customer perceived defects. The company was Motorola. The year was 1987. The result was winning the Malcomb Baldrige National Quality Award. Subsequently, Six Sigma ignited a rash of "breakthrough improvement" fires around corporate America. The next in line: Allied Signal, then General Electric. The rest is history and companies (and the Six Sigma methodology) continue to flourish.

Who will be the visionary CEO to do for innovation what Six Sigma did for process improvement? What will be the methodology that many companies gravitate toward? The future is unclear, but it’s my hope that Real Innovation and The TRIZ Journal will help corporations and their CEOs on the journey.

RSS