5 Reasons Not to Use Apple As a Role-Model for Innovation
I just read a good post on Apple and Jobs by Tom Fishburne on Apple. Well, this is actually one of the few situations where I get to enjoy cartoons at work. They are great and you should check them out!
The many posts on Apple due to Jobs resignation got me to think about the many times, I have heard people argue that Apple is a very innovative company and that other companies should copy their efforts.
I always tell people to cool it, when they start on this. I do believe Apple is a very innovate company, but here you get 5 reasons why I believe you should not use Apple as a role-model for innovation.
1. Apple is a very unique company. Yes, Apple is very innovative, but they are also very unique making it difficult and even dangerous for others to copy. Companies need to build on their own strengths and get inspiration from several companies rather than getting blinded by the way one very successful – and unique – company innovates.
2. The innovation knowledge of Apple is limited. How much do we really know about how Apple innovates? I have a hard time finding good insights on their innovation processes. This secrecy on many levels is perhaps also what makes them so appealing.
3. Apple is a closed company. Building further on the above, Apple do not really seem to open up their innovation efforts which I see as the future for most – if not all – industries and companies.
4. Your company cannot hire the same quality people as Apple. People want to work at cool companies making it easier for Apple to hire people that make a difference. This goes for all of their functions from engineers over marketers to retail employees.
5. Your company does not have a Steve Jobs. No further comments on this.
Learn from Apple. Don’t copy it.
Agree – actually wrote a note on it on our blog a while ago;
http://www.cometoknow.com/do-not-try-to-innovate-…
DO NOT TRY TO INNOVATE LIKE STEVE JOBS!
Now, I am all for Apple, Mr. Jobs and all the great things coming from them – so this is not aimed at his/their way of innovating;-)
What I am adressing is that companies should not try to adopt, copy or imitate Apple’s way of innovating – but more be inspired by them.
Most “ordinary” companies will not/never be able to reach their level of innovation, but in many cases they try to copy it, and then they fail big time!
Even if your CEO turns up monday morning in a black turtleneck, comfy sneakers and jeans – it won’t do the trick;-)
Instead these companies should be inspired by the likes of Apple, and carefully handpick methods that can be useful to them and their innovation effort.
There is a lot of proven methods that can be implemented easily:
Time to innovate
- allow staff time for innovation – be inspired ie. by Googles 20% “rule” (even 3% would in many cases deliver outstanding results!)
Include contributions outside your company
- invite your customers, suppliers, partners, resellers – P&G has done this for years with great success!
Use your agility!
- being a smaller company allows you a huge innovation potential in being agile. This is probably something Mr. Jobs envies you;-)
Secure your processes from idea to implementation
- what the biggies – besides constantly collecting ideas – are doing so great, is to secure the processes of bringing the best ideas to life, fast and efficient.
The lowest hanging fruits
- go for small solid row of successful projects, and build on that for new & bigger breakthroughs!
Now, the list is probably much longer, but above 5 will take you a long way – and after you implemented them, then allow yourself the turtleneck, sneakers and jeans – but only to wear in the weekends;-)
/Michael
Good post, I fully agree. I have been looking at Apple's way to innovate and it is really hard to find good information. People there are creative and sharp for sure but when it comes to collaboration, it is rather a closed company which does not welcome unsolicited ideas. Now when we also look at it, they have been very focused on a limited number of products. It is not the items themselves that have been innovative (Ipad tablets type existed more than 10 years ago), it is the business model and the value chain. As much as I am impressed by their spirit and success, it is hard for me to extract any lessons that can be useful in my "universe".
There is something key to also take into account : the number of products Apple has! Apple has very few markets to concentrate on and Steve Job, as a visionnary, know those better than anybody else. Well, that may be replicable for start-ups. But how many of existing companies are in this case? Most companies have very extensive product and require a more systematic model to innovate. Their companyy culture, people, organization and market complexity are very different; I strongly believe that firms should not try to clone characteristics which are not natural to their own business.
It does not mean that those companies should not change to become more innovative, it means that the only efficient and resilient way for them to do it is by implementing practices and processes that are designed to produce results more systematically.
I recently helped a very well establish international company, with an important R&D team, on an initiative to sollicitate external ideas, and in spite of warning them that without changes in internal practices, in processes and systems in place, this would not work, they wanted to go ahead anyway. Guess what? It did not failed in getting quality ideas. It failed because none of these ideas found the appropriate ground to grow and to make it in the R&D portfolio.
In such companies, with disperse teams, large number of products and multiple decision making, you cannot rely on the Visionary and need to establish repeatable processes, appropriate organizations and responsibilities, supporting systems nd so. Does not look much fun, right? Well, that it works if you are not a start-up and not any more (Google)…
Good post and like other commenters, I agree. I would extend point 1 further and say each company is unique, so trying to transfer in an innovation approach from another company without adapting it is likely to fail. The Solution Focus principle of "each situation is unique" applies.
I simply do not understand the same old "Apple is closed" statement. The "closed" iPhone and iPad have unleashed a flood of programmer creativity, as a million unexpected uses present themselves. To call that system "closed" tells me that that word no longer has a useful meaning when we are describing computer systems that allow innovation by those outside the company that made them.