The Games Of Innovation
In a comment to my recent Are Engineers Really Good For Innovation? blog post, Paul Hobcraft made a great reference to an article by Patrick Lambe he had read some years ago. The article is about the concerns on the engineer dominated mindset within innovation. Paul gave us this piece from Lambe’s article.
“When it comes to innovation, let’s consider the analogy of two games.
Golf is an engineer’s game. It’s a problem-solving game. You have a problem, the hole, and in theory, getting your ball into the hole is entirely calculable: if you can measure the wind speed, the atmospherics, the inclines and friction of the surface, and if you can control the weight, angle and velocity of the swing, you’ll solve your problem.
Like golf, engineering is above all a problem-solving game. It only works if your innovation environment is one of specifiable problems that you can pin down, locate, and work hard at in a consistent, methodical fashion.
Tennis, by contrast, is a responsive, adaptive, dynamic game. Here, it doesn’t matter particularly where the ball goes so long as it stays within the court. The point here is not so much the precision with which the ball is directed, but the addition you make to the direction, angle and spin of the ball as it comes at you.
Each player must both respond to the novelties added by the other player and add something special to the ball when they send it back across the net. The fun of the game is in the ability to respond, adapt, and add something new. It’s a much more playful game than golf.
Tennis is a far better analogy than golf for our current innovation environment, because it’s all about responding to uncertainty. When the problems won’t stay still, and when we can’t see or define them precisely, the golfing approach won’t work.
The tennis player worries more about catching what’s coming at us now, and sending it back with a little (innovated) spice added.”
Paul mentioned this might add some additional thoughts to engineers and innovation. I agree – thanks for sharing this, Paul!
The 'adding of novelties' to returning the ball in tennis speaks to innovation in that one is obliged to add something extra to the 'offering' each time in fact just to stand still. I suspect that this has always been true, less noticed in the good times unmissable in the bad times. And yet there are industries that actually choose to ignore these messages. Further there are environment(s) that are right for innovation – it is creating them that eludes us. It takes time and hard work and it does not happen overnight. Start with behaviourial change and then move to creating a learning environment, innovation will follow right behind.
Hey Stefan
I spoke at a conference recently and used a sports analogy similar to yours, only with baseball and soccer. To me, baseball is a classic game but not very innovative – too many rules, too much equipment required, and really very few people involved in any play, whereas soccer is very innovative – few rules, little equipment and everyone can be involved all the time.
Your analogy about golf and tennis is a good one, especially since in tennis we not only send the ball back to our opponent but we anticipate their next shot as well, so we are constantly thinking about the future.
Hi Jeffrey,
We should credt Patrick Lambe for this
By the way, the other problem with baseball is that it is not really an international sport. Innovation truly is.
Stefan
I like your analogy.
I would add another factor – your opponent. If you play with the same person, you will know their style, strengths and weaknesses, and for this reason the game is relatively pre-determined (except in the case of an 'upset'). When you play with different opponents each time, you must be more innovative, because there's no telling what could happen next.
That's what I call 'Planned Serendipity' – surround yourself with people, places and ideas previously unknown, and you'll discover new abilities within yourself.
Spark09 is a conference that brings this theory to reality. Check out: http://bit.ly/MWqSF
ALL,
It is easy to lambaste Engineers for their (stereotypical) inclination to find an optimal solution to every situation, but do not underestimate their ability to adapt to dynamic situations when called to arms.
I'll admit, in addition to other things, I am also an Engineer. And, I'll give you that, as a group, we are less trusting of anyone's intuition (our own included) over discoverable and verifiable facts. Unlike most other professions, an Engineer's career credibility hangs on his/her every statement. If an HR managers hires or fires the wrong person – no big deal. An engineer specs the wrong component to a vehicle design and hundreds of people could be harmed or killed.
Whenever instructed, encouraged and funded to do so (a rarity), Engineers are the first and fastest at rationally and creatively predicting plausible conditions as design constraints within which to develop an innovative product or service despite uncertainty. They also excel at Brainstorming bar none and can handle constructive criticism well (not emotionally wed to one idea).
They also suffer from two classic failure modes at this point in the innovation process. One, they zoom in for 'the solution too soon' thus precluding the big ideas that may have been a day away. Or, two, they keep refining a concept well past the point of diminishing returns.
Test yourselves: in an Innovation Contest who would you bet on to be most innovative when faced with any challenge to the status quo with a good amount of uncertainty to be interesting. Your champion must be selected from the following disciplines (a TYPICAL) Engineer, Executive, Accountant, HR Manager, Buyer, Salesperson, Financial Folk OR Consultant.
I love Sports and play many regularly (swim, bike, run, …)
But all that really matters (where innovation concerns all of us in this forum) is getting the Job done; and MY money's on the Engineer.
Counterpoints are welcome!
GGG
CORRECTION:
WAS: "They also suffer from two classic failure modes at this point in the innovation process."
NOW: "Some suffer from two classic failure modes at this point in the innovation process, but those few are a minority, in my experience."
Great article and comments.
I like the golf vs tennis metaphor, but I think the golf vs a team sport such as soccer or rugby, would be more appropriate. You respond to the opponent's game, but the team dynamics is a also key component of success. You can have great individual players that make for a lousy team, and the latter won't go very far. But if you get your alchemy right, the team's value will be greater than the sum of its parts. It will create unexpected solutions that will surprise everyone, including team mates. Watching the All Blacks or Manchester United in action, you never know where the next move is going to come from, and it is a mixture of experience and intuition, very much like innovation. And of course, great soccer and rugby clubs, just like multinationals, are international teams that have to find a working culture and shared values that cut across language, training and past experience. Getting it right is a real challenge, but when they do, they get to the top of their league.
Isabelle
I love analogies, and I think in analogies constantly. I think analogies are wonderful innovation stimulators. The golf/tennis comparison is a good one, and tennis does indeed parallel innovation better than does golf.
However, as an engineer, I'd like to point out something about the tennis analogy. It's a subtle point that I think was misstated in the original statement, "it doesn’t matter particularly where the ball goes so long as it stays within the court." That is not really true, at least not if you are playing competitively and have more than the most rudimentary skills.
In competitive tennis, you are usually trying to put the ball in a particular spot, at a particular speed, with a particular spin, in order to prevent your opponent from successfully returning it to you. Whether you are using a top spin lob over your opponents head, or a drop shot just over the net with backspin, is obviously a big difference, and is part of the novelty you are trying to add to the shot. It actually matters greatly where the ball goes in the court.
I say this not to be nitpicky, but to make a point. Just like in golf, at the moment of your decision on what type of tennis shot to use, all the same engineering factors come into play. In theory, you should be able to calculate exactly how to swing the racket to contact the ball to generate the spin and flight you want. That is the completion of the novelty you add. It isn't just the thought or intent you have, but the execution of it as well that counts.
For innovation, this is a key part of the game as well. It isn't just the creative spark, idea, or concept that is the innovation, but must also include the execution follow-up. As such, engineers and engineering thinking are a crucial part of the complete innovation process.
As Brad, I love analogies too. In a bottle of wine whats crucial: The bottle, the wine or the cork? I can´t say wich one is crucial! Which part of the complete innovation process are the engineers? The bottle, the wine..?
I think the most important part of that process are the people and their attitudes. Let's play tennis!
Greg said " HR managers hires or fires the wrong person – no big deal". Its not true! Imagine if it is Mike Ryschkewitsch NASA Chief Engineer!!
The moments and people are crucial for Open Innovation, no matter their education. We just need to choose the best options. Sometimes Engineers are good, sometimes not!