Experimentation vs. Innovation
Innovation has become quite fashionable. It shows up lately in almost every company’s annual report and is the subject of countless articles, books and educational offerings. Legitimately, both the culture and process of innovation, in all its complexity, has been successfully implemented in a number of companies, leading to tremendous increases in shareholder value. 3M quite consistently and Apple more dramatically spring to mind.
Although innovative “breakthroughs” are very much part of this trend and are to be revered and celebrated, the overall concept of innovation as promoted and put in practice has always seemed way too incremental and way too slow to me. The basket of innovation seems much too big and much too forgiving if we put something like Frosted Cheerios or Gillette’s latest razor and razor blade combination in there!
I am much more excited about the concept of “hyperactive experimentation”. It has a lot more ambiguity and uncertainty associated with it, perhaps even a chaotic feel. And, although it appears and sounds riskier than innovation, it also seems to have more upside potential. It could even be a recognized game changer in a mature or otherwise sleepy market.
Hyperactive experimentation may sound like just another way to describe an aggressive approach to innovation, but I think it’s different. There’s a lot more “Why not?” along the way. It’s faster. It’s potentially more ubiquitous, as the costs associated with each experimentation effort tend to drop. There are fewer perceived constraints or even the need to identify what they might be upfront. I think it can also be exceedingly more creative and visionary relative to both emerging and prospectively redefined market needs.
Discipline helps. Resources are limited and having some evidence of success in promoting the concept of hyperactive experimentation is a wise move when attracting the necessary capital. Some things to consider, include:
• If it’s a new product or service idea, can you test its commercial relevance? Can you “instantly” find out whether people will embrace it? Can you “prototype” your ability to deliver on it? Is it quickly scalable once determined to be viable?
• If it’s a dramatic internal change in people or processes, does it have the potential to actually redefine who you are or how you go to market? Will it provide an opportunity to take the lead or dominate? Can you immediately simulate or test the potential impact of the change?
• Are there parallel market changes and complementary applications that will promote and accelerate adoption? [The proliferation of touch screen applications comes to mind, as do mobile transaction devices. Can they facilitate success?]
• Could the experimentation lead to or accelerate tangential or peripheral developments, either with multiple, newly identified game changing opportunities or breakthrough improvements within previously defined areas with huge upside potential? [The medical and energy markets thrive on these types of catalysts.]
• Is there a recognizable path forward, even if it’s not totally clear or predictable?
Fear of failure doesn’t help. Experimentation can be messy and at times discouraging. Small successes, lightly funded, or even the discovery of things unexpected can boost enthusiasm and provide the necessary drive to make a formidable breakthrough and reach a point where success can clearly be recognized.
Instead of just extending your reach, why not take an intentional, potentially more rewarding leap… if not as part of an ongoing, provocative culture of speed and hyperactive experimentation, at least by maintaining an aggressive appetite for expansive opportunism?!