25
May 2006Why is it that we make our lives unnecessarily hard when we innovate?
An article by Anne Miller, Director of The Creativity Partnership. Write to her with your comments at anne.miller@tcp-uk.co.uk
For example, one middle manager at a client of mine was struggling with how to resource a very profitable business opportunity his team had spotted, given that the MD had banned all recruitment.
He was looking for creative ways round this, but finally with some encouragement from me, he went to the MD, laid out the business case and explained the (900%) return that he could get within the year from recruiting one temporary technician.
Suddenly, it became clear that the true constraint was not 'no recruitment' but 'no recruitment unless it clearly improves our cash position by the year end.' He recruited his technician, successfully exploited the opportunity and was promoted a year later.
He'd fallen into a very common creativity trap, often referred to in the jargon as 'falsely assumed constraints'.
I think the first reason this happens is that there is a natural human tendency to like certainty and clarity. Many organisations go to great trouble to ensure that there are clear targets, specifications and performance indicators for everything.
The problem is that when trying to do something new and innovative, there is a real risk that by condensing things down too far, one also shrinks the creative space available for coming up with a solution. Adding 11 extra words to the MD's recruitment constraint was worth a lot by the year end.
This problem is made worse because the human brain is very good at pattern recognition. If we see something that we recognise, we pay it more attention and remember it better than something confusing. The more pressurised and stressed we are, the more this happens.
This is very useful when trying to spot a leopard stalking you through the long grass, or finding a friend in a crowd. However, when trying to condense a complex set of requirements for an innovation into a few simple sentences, we tend to unconsciously frame the constraints round the familiar, not the uncertain.
The MD in question had a reputation for running a tight financial operation, so the idea that recruitment was banned was a very familiar idea and took root very readily. This then became a rigid constraint, which excluded the possibility that that there might be circumstances in which he'd make an exception.
So if this is part of human nature, what can we do about it?
One of the interesting things about innovative organisations and individuals is that they tend to adopt network-like structures, rather than rigid hierarchical ones. These have the advantage that instead of simple lines of command and control, individuals are in contact with many different sources of influence and information. Things are much less clear than in a hierarchical system, but the very diversity of sources of information provides the innovator with the breadth that they need to understand the true constraints and to stimulate their creativity.
When I was running my innovation team, we tried hard to avoid being forced into the position where there was just a single point of contact between innovation team and the recipients. Even though there would always be a clear project manager, I always found it very useful to insist that the key team members should also be able to have direct contact with the people that actually wanted the innovation. If you give in and allow a single individual to become the conduit for everything, they also become a filter and hence accidentally constrain people's creativity.
Another effective way of providing the network of contacts that reduces the danger of falsely assumed constraints is also the simplest - MBWA or Management by Walking Around. This old favourite is a very effective way of nipping misunderstandings in the bud and of providing the depth and background to the thinking behind the simple statement of an innovation requirement.
The problem is that it's often hard to find the time to do it.
The other day I heard of a nice solution, adopted by the director of one successful organisation with about 1500 staff. He's instructed his PA to schedule and publicise a slot in his diary every month for MBWA. He finds that it doesn't matter that the timing is clearly not spontaneous; it's much more important that it happens. The spontaneity comes in his responses as he talks to his staff about whatever arises.
This seems to me to be a very nice example of an effective way of making people's creative life easier, within the realities of organisational life.
© Copyright Anne Miller May 2006
About Anne Miller
Anne Miller is director of The Creativity Partnership, which was founded in 2000, originally as the learning and development subsidiary of TTP Group.
Anne has an infectious enthusiasm for creativity. She began her career with an MA in Engineering from Cambridge University, then spent 20 years leading teams developing innovative products in collaboration with the world's leading companies. She is a successful inventor and holds more than 30 patents for a diverse range of products, ranging from power tools to the manufacturing system for the female condom.
Anne was one of the founders of TTP Group in 1988, and played an active part in fostering the Group's innovative culture. As TTP developed she became increasingly interested in how the ability to innovate can be developed in both organisations and individuals. She established The Creativity Partnership as the learning and development subsidiary of TTP Group in 2000.
Since then The Creativity Partnership has developed a successful track record in helping a wide range of organisations foster, manage and realise value from creativity. The Creativity Partnership became fully independent from TTP in a spin-out in October 2004.