What Is Innovation?

What Is Innovation?

by | Feb 10, 2020 | Uncategorized | 2 comments

Innovation is one of those words that gets used more often than it gets defined. And these days, it gets used a whole lot. In fact, it’s probably overused. But despite the popularity of the term (or maybe because of it) we run into a lot of confusion about what the word innovate even means.

Let’s clear that up today, shall we?

Team Toolkit uses a pretty simple definition of innovation. It’s just three words: “NOVELTY WITH IMPACT.” We like this definition for several reasons.

First, it’s simple, clear, and short enough to be memorable. That’s important, because a definition people can’t understand or remember isn’t very helpful, is it?

Second, “novelty with impact” is broad enough to be applicable in a wide range of situations. For example, we might talk about novel technologies or novel processes, new organizational structures or new methods of communication. We know novelty comes in a lot of different flavors, so our definition encompasses them rather than trying to list them (e.g. “Innovation is any new process, technology, solution, product, etc…”).

Incidentally, we tend to take a broad, inclusive understanding of the word novelty. The thing doesn’t have to be new to the whole world to count as novel. If it’s new to us, or new to our domain, that counts.

Similarly, the word impact might refer to saving time or saving money, increasing effectiveness or improving efficiency. It might refer to solving a problem, making an improvement, changing the marketplace or revolutionizing the battlespace. Rather than trying to pack our definition with a comprehensive list of all that stuff, we just refer to all forms of positive difference making as “impact.”

Third, “novelty with impact” helps distinguish innovative things from non-innovative alternatives. How can we tell the difference between an innovative product and a standard offering? The innovative product is novel. And what’s the difference between an innovative product and something that is merely creative? The innovative product has an impact.

But the best thing about this definition is that it points to two very important questions: What novelty are you trying to introduce? What impact are you trying to have?

Answering those two questions is a great way to get clarity about the sort of innovation we’re trying to introduce to the world.

For example, this blog post is offering a new definition of innovation (Novelty!), to help people better understand what innovation is and to build their innovation strategies (Impact!).

Which brings us to you. What sort of novelty are you trying to introduce in your arena? What sort of impact are you trying to have? Answer those questions and you’re well on your way to doing it.

Customizing Tools

Customizing Tools

by | Jan 6, 2020 | Uncategorized

Our previous blog post looked at the Rose, Bud, Thorn canvas, one of the most popular tools in the kit. This week’s post continues on that theme, but with a bit of a twist.

Photo by Ben Weber on Unsplash

A few months back one of our ITK facilitators received an interesting request from a potential toolkit user. They said they were open to the idea of using the Rose, Bud, Thorn with their team, but only if we could create a militarized, hypermasculine version. They said the floral imagery inherent in this tool made them uncomfortable, and they suggested perhaps something like “Gun, Knife, Bomb” might work better.

Um, that’s a big nope. We’re not doing that.

As a general rule, Team Toolkit aims to meet people where they are. We customize tools all the time, to make sure they fit well with the specific language, preferences, and inclinations of the people we are trying to help. We think it’s good to modify our vocabulary and make sure our language choice is as clear as possible. If a word has different meanings in different domains, we make every effort to ensure we’re using the right one for the environment.

For example, with some folks we might talk about mission and purpose rather than objectives and goals. Similarly, when working with military organizations we tend to not use terms like “profit” or “sales,” because those terms aren’t generally relevant within DoD organizations.

However, changing a tool’s name to accommodate narrow biases and insecurities does not do anyone any favors. And to be quite clear, this team was not asking to rename RBT because they come from a post-agrarian society and can’t relate to botanical metaphors. No, they asked for the change because they explicitly felt flowers aren’t manly enough.

Here’s the thing – if you can’t handle a flower-based metaphor because it seems too girly, you’re going to have a really hard time doing anything innovative. I promise, accommodating this team’s request would have limited their ability to be innovative, not enhanced it.

Team Toolkit’s mission is to “democratize innovation.” We are here to help people understand what innovation is and how to do it. This necessarily involves expanding people’s horizons, introducing new metaphors, building new connections, and taking teams beyond business-as-usual methods and symbols. Allowing teams to stay in their narrow comfort zone is the very definition of non-innovation.

So yes, we love to customize our tools, but not if those changes make the tools less effective. Not if the changes narrow people’s mental aperture rather than expanding their horizons. And definitely not if the change reinforces lame stereotypes.

And for those of you who ARE open to a flower-based innovation tool, can I suggest also checking out the Lotus Blossom?

Rose Bud Thorn

Rose Bud Thorn

by | Dec 16, 2019 | Tools 101

The Rose, Bud, Thorn tool is consistently the most downloaded tool in the kit. I have to admit that particular statistic from our website’s analytics always puzzled me a bit. I mean, RBT is a fine little method but it never struck me as particularly special. In fact, I always thought it looked pretty basic (that’s the term the kids use these days, right?). All you’re doing is listing the positive (rose), potential (bud), and negative (thorn) aspects of a project. No big deal, right?

Apparently my meh opinion was based on the fact that I’d never really used it before. When I finally did give it a try with a workshop last week, it pretty much blew me away.

What’s so awesome about this tool? Why do I love it now? Well, it is hugely accessible, for starters. There are no complicated steps to explain, no detailed procedures to follow, no subtle nuances to watch for. You’d think a guy who literally wrote the book on simplicity would be better at recognizing elegant simplicity when he sees it, but that’s the thing about simplicity. It often appears underwhelming at first blush. Sometimes the real value only becomes apparent when we look closer or take the thing out for a spin. I should probably go re-read my own book.

Last week’s workshop helped me see the RBT is a powerful lens groups can use to assess, analyze, and strategize. It reveals hidden assumptions and enables us to see past superficial considerations and achieve a deeper understanding of our situation. This participants spent an hour going through the RBT analysis, and it really set the stage for the rest of the two-day event.

If you’re going to use this with your team (and I highly recommend it!), I have one facilitation tip to consider: resist the urge to write the same thing in all three columns. This was a very common error in all the groups I worked with last week. Over and over again people said “We think X belongs in all three columns, because it has positive (rose), negative (thorn) and potential (bud) aspects.” Yes, the thing they’re talking about has roses, buds, and thorns. But the whole point of the tool is to distinguish between the roses, buds, and thorns. So putting the same word in all three columns isn’t terribly helpful. Once the groups began writing down the actual good, bad, and promising aspects of those things… the results were amazing.

How about an example? Consider a medical treatment that cures an illness. The cure is the ROSE. However, the treatment also has negative side effects. That’s the THORN. And let’s say that some (but not all) patients experience a secondary benefit. That would be the BUD.

Writing TREATMENT X in all three columns is not very helpful or insightful. It’s the wrong way to use the tool. Instead, I would suggest writing “Cures the disease” in the rose column. Then list the negative side effect (e.g. Causes significant fatigue) in the thorn column. Finally, describe the potential benefit (e.g. “Clears up acne for some patients”) in the bud column. We could now evaluate the relative costs and benefits of the treatment and decide how to proceed.

I hope you’ll give this tool a try – and we’d love to hear your stories of how you used it!

ITK & F-35

ITK & F-35

by | Dec 9, 2019 | Success Stories

This week’s guest post is by Rick Dunham, from MITRE’s Air/Ground Surveillance Program, and it highlights a recent application of the Innovation Toolkit to the F-35 program.

Image of the MITRE F-35 Team Builds a Foundation for Success

Lead Human Factors Engineer Jessica Yu (standing) briefs F-35 Lightning II Enterprise Focus team members on using the Innovation Toolkit.

On Nov. 5-6, MITRE’s F-35 Lightning II Enterprise Focus team met in Dayton, Ohio, to build collaborative FY20 strategic foundations, covering shared-knowledge, sponsor-specific deliverables and outcomes. The diverse team, which includes more than 65 MITRE engineers from across the U.S., is charged with delivering F-35 Continuous Capability Development and Deployment (C2D2) to the field faster and more efficiently.

An Air Force Portfolio High-Profile Program, F-35 Enterprise team leads Portfolio Manager Jen Hebert and Project Leader Chris Jella—facilitated by the Innovation Toolkit Team—pioneered and challenged four main focus area groups: Reduce Live Fly; Implement Advance Capabilities; Integrate US, Partner, and International Efforts; and Modernize Mission Support and Infrastructures. The goal is to leverage and link cross-functional expertise in building shared mission-driven impactful products and outcomes.

This team-based approach and visionary mindset is why our F-35 Enterprise sponsors have come to rely on MITRE to organize work so that it magnifies the delivered capability to any one individual sponsor. By synthesizing MITRE’s internal, full-spectrum-funded research, labs, direct sponsor work, and related activities, the government pays once for a capability that benefits many sponsors and stakeholders.

MITRE F-35 Challenge Coin 500.jpgAdditionally, shared deliverables are a centerpiece of the MITRE F-35 Enterprise strategy. Each focus area group has both a set of sponsor-specific deliverables and a well-crafted outcome that contributes to a higher strategy while addressing local sponsor priorities.

This collaborative, get-to-know-you comradery structure will pay dividends, strengthening MITRE’s core excellence and service and ultimately, solving our sponsor’s most challenging C2D2 needs.

 

INTERVIEW: Niall White

INTERVIEW: Niall White

by | Oct 14, 2019 | Interviews, Team Toolkit

Earlier this month I sat down with Niall White for an interview, the latest in our ongoing Meet Team Toolkit blog series. Well, I’m using the word “with” loosely, because I was in Massachusetts and he lives in Utah. We talked about music, art, cake, stinky cheese, and – of course – innovation. Niall is smart, analytical, funny, and a genuinely nice guy. Hope you enjoy the interview!

Dan: Let’s start with a get-to-know-you question: Say one word that describes you… and then say some more words about it.

Niall: One word is probably optimizer. I’m very analytical and like to be sure about things. So I’m always considering my options to make sure I’ve picked the best one. I love doing a lot of research but I also try to avoid overthinking things or spending too much time on research. Sometimes I succeed in that…

D: How did you end up at MITRE?

N: I first heard about MITRE from my dad when I was a kid. He was an Air Traffic Controller who worked with MITRE and always had good things to say about the people. Then in grad school, I interviewed with the company and got a great offer. Two years later, I’m still here!

D: What did you study in grad school?

N: I got an MS in Information Security Policy and Management, at Carnegie-Mellon, which is a fancy way of saying I studied cybersecurity. While I was there I also took a few courses in design thinking, and that’s a big part of how I got involved with the Innovation Toolkit.

D: Aside from working on ITK, what else do you do at MITRE?

N: I mostly support Public-Private Partnership and Acquisition projects, helping to translate technology into requirements and building strategies.  But the ITK work overlaps a lot with my day job – it’s fun to pull design thinking and ITK into the cyber-type work, whether it’s cyber testing or program protection.

D: What’s it like to be part of Team Toolkit?

N: It’s great! We all have so many diverse skills and backgrounds, which is really cool. As someone whose primary expertise is in the cyber realm, I can definitely empathize with people who don’t automatically feel like they are part of the design thinking crowd, or maybe feel like these methods aren’t really for them. Because of my background, I can help show that ITK is really for everyone.

D: How might you explain ITK to someone who’s not really familiar with things like design thinking or innovation?

N: I’d say these are tools that help adults be kids again. They help us tap into a more creative mental mode. These tools change our speed, exercise a different part of our brain, and ultimately make us better problem solvers.

D: Do you have a favorite tool?

N: Yeah, I really like the Premortem. And Mind Mapping. And Problem Framing. So I guess I have three favorites, but they’re all sort of related. Too often teams jump right to a solution or end up being busy for the sake of being busy. These tools help make sure we know what the problem really is, and they give us permission to have really important conversations we might not otherwise have. Conversations like “What problem are we really trying to solve?”

D: One of the things Team Toolkit does is celebrate failure with cake. Do you have a favorite flavor of Failure Cake?

N: I like failure cake that tastes OK. All too often failure does not feel OK, so I’d love it if failure cake was an OK flavor. Maybe vanilla? And let me add that if Team Toolkit was a cake, it would definitely be my favorite kind of cake: Funfetti, with all the colors and flavors together. Confetti is my favorite thing.

D: I borrowed that last question from when your wife Kaylee interviewed me, and this next question is from her too. If ITK were on the cover of a major business / innovation magazine, what would you want the cover to look like?

N: I’d want it to be an art montage by Lane Smith. He’s the illustrator who did Stinky Cheese Man, and I really like his visual style. It would be so cool to see how he would represent Team Toolkit.

D: Final question – is there anything else you want to tell the world about ITK?

N: It’s such an amazing team, and I hope more people can find themselves on teams like this. Everyone deserves this at least once in their lives!