Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The contemporary challenge facing all organizations that are pursuing real growth is: “How do we
leverage our current success into growing globally?” This scholarly paper addresses the question
from four, related perspectives:
(1) Innovation – the appreciative adaptation to turbulence;
(2) Collaboration – incorporating diversity to promote accelerated innovation;
(3) Pervasive Leadership – an all-inclusive approach to sponsoring collaborative innovation;
(4) Converging Technologies – emerging digital faculties that enable collaborative innovation.
1. Introduction
Growing globally in the 21st Century will require immediate and positive responses to
emerging customer needs. This level of innovation will depend heavily on the
organization‟s ability to collaborate effectively, lead for change, and integrate converging
technologies to support these organizational processes.
This paper addresses the question, “How do we leverage our current corporate
success to grow globally?” by: (1) describing the process of innovation as a response to
changing customer requirements; (2) defining collaboration in support of innovation; (3)
offering leadership models that contribute to collaborative innovation; and (4) reviewing
converging technologies that support these processes.
(1) Innovation can be defined as “the appreciative adaptation to turbulence.” Innovation
is appreciative, because it is based on envisioning positive outcomes, rather than
“fixing problems.” Innovation is an adaptation, because it occurs in response to an
identified need in the environment. Innovation is in response to turbulence because
it keeps pace with the rate of change in the environment. Thus, a climate of
innovation will help an organization grow globally by responding positively to the
exponential number of changes that will be encountered.
(2) Collaboration incorporates diverse views and capabilities in support of the
innovation response. Diversity is an essential element in accelerating innovation –
there is only so much that a static group of thinkers can accomplish in response to
1
2 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu
the various changes in the environment. Diversity of thought and skills will add to
the creativity as well as execution of innovations.
(3) Pervasive Leadership – recognizing and leveraging appropriate leader activity at all
levels of the organization – increases the quantity and quality of innovation.
Workers from various departments within an organization can more readily
recognize changes in the environment and contribute to collaborative innovation in
response. Distinct from – but often parallel with – management, leadership aligns
corporate activity with corporate vision, and elicits the highest quality productivity in
a supportive, trusting, progressive, and developmental atmosphere.
(4) Converging technologies are dramatically speeding up the pace and possibilities for
expanding the global reach of collaborative innovation. The entire “Web 2.0”
phenomenon is dedicated to the ability to network with others, tag information to be
shared with others, and provide platforms to generate solutions. Social networking
facilities such as LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook, along with more “traditional”
tools like email and instant messaging, are used effectively by creative teams to
bridge time and distance in pursuit of truly global collaboration. On the cutting
edge, Cloud Computing and immersive 3D Virtual Social Environments (VSEs) are
converging and morphing into unique avenues to deepen the level of communication
among and across groups who, in the recent past, would not be able to create
solutions together. These converging technologies provide not only in-world
meeting spaces, but teaming spaces where the co-creation and testing of virtual
prototypes of all aspects of business across all industries is a faster and far less costly
method of modeling and evaluating physical solutions.
2. Background
In 2005 (not all that long ago), Thomas Friedman told us that the world is flat [Friedman
(2005)]. It was not so much that he had a brand new idea that needed to be proposed,
proven, and adopted – Friedman really put a fine point on telling us what we already
knew: the rate of rampant consumerism in the industrialized nations was declining, and
the “developing world” was acquiring an appetite for new goods and services. At the
same time, the cost of manufacturing was becoming more attractive in some parts of the
world, rather than other, more traditional venues, helping to keep product costs moderate.
Exchanging products and services across international boundaries would be essential to
this new economy. Friedman gave us a common term to readily share that notion – the
world has indeed become “flat.”
To be sure, economic disparities and financial market crises have introduced some
hills in the landscape. Energy is needed to transport people and products around the
globe – yet carbon fuels are increasingly costly in terms of dollars and environmental
impact. Variances in currency value slow the stable exchange of funds between
countries. The rise and fall of consumer confidence and spending play havoc with
production estimates. Yet, the market appears to hurtle inexorably towards “global.”
A parallel development during the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is the ever-
increasing demand for innovation. With consumer variables ever-more quickly changing
the face of the market, companies need to respond ever-more quickly to those changes.
Growing Globally in the 21st Century 3
These processes, and converging technologies that support them, will be discussed in
this paper.
3. Research Hypothesis
The hypothetical construct by which this paper is organized is: “Innovation, as supported
by collaboration, leadership, and converging technologies, is necessary to the successful
global growth of 21st century organizations.
4. Methodology
The methodology used to research this hypothesis is scholarly; viz., the hypothetical
construct is supported through the examination of relevant literature and conclusions by
the authors.
5. Innovation
Research & Development department might view innovation as the creation of a new
product or service to complement the company‟s line. Service Desk operators might
define innovation as the development of a new process to better serve customers using
their products or services. The executive suite might define innovation as new ways to
increase shareholder value in their corporate holdings. Some view innovation as the
“creative act” that leads to new products or services, while others see it as the entire
process leading to the general, extensive adoption by the intended audience.
In the glossary of his definitive work on innovation, Diffusion of Innovations [Rogers
(2003)], sociologist Everett Rogers defined innovation as, “An idea, practice, or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” [p. 475]. Now, this of
course frames the innovation from the perspective of its adoption – it is whatever is
perceived as new by the adopter; but this definition contributes the universal innovation
concepts of “idea, practice, or object,” novelty, and someone to adopt it.
We commonly acknowledge the terms, “practice” and “object” with the services and
products generated by innovative companies; the concept that an “idea” may be an
innovation is somewhat alien to our current use of the term. However, Rogers began his
investigations into innovation adoption in the 1960‟s as a sociological study; that is, he
wanted to ascertain how new ideas transmitted themselves across novice populations.
The pervasive concept that an innovation is actually a technological breakthrough is a
more recent development.
Robert Burgelman and Leonard Sayles [1986] define innovation as, “a company‟s
efforts in instituting new methods of production and/or bringing new products or services
to market” (p. 10), affirming the prevailing notion that an idea must be realized in some
fashion to be considered an innovation.
Some authors have further defined innovation as being either incremental (also called
sustaining) or disruptive [Christensen (2003); Christensen and Raynor (2003); Moore
(2005)]. An incremental innovation advances the development of an existing product or
service by extending its functionality without changing its basic structure, function, or
purpose. As Christensen observes, “What all sustaining technologies have in common is
that they improve the performance of established products, along the dimensions of
performance that mainstream customers in major markets have historically valued” [p.
xviii]. The new version upgrades to software (e.g., from 1.0 to 2.0) might be considered
an example of incremental innovation. While the basic function of the software is not
changed, there are new features and functions, and perhaps some inadequacies or outright
defects have been “fixed” in the new release.
A disruptive innovation, on the other hand, actually displaces the technology that is
currently in place – or discovers an entirely new niche in the marketplace to either
address existing market needs or establish new ones. Moore [2005] states that, “This
type of innovation creates new market categories based on a discontinuous technology
change or a disruptive business model.” An example is the cellular telephone; it may be
seen as disruptive to pay phones (when was the last time you used one of those?) and
possibly to mobile radio (citizens band, amateur, and professional) as a way to provide
voice communications between individuals across long distances. Initially, the disruptive
technology will typically not perform well in the market, but will eventually out-perform
the existing technology it replaces, leading to Christensen‟s Innovator’s Dilemma
Growing Globally in the 21st Century 5
As the various stages of this continuum are engaged, the notion of innovation applies.
During Ideation, the aspects of novelty and uniqueness are evident. When actual
Invention occurs, the creative ideas are realized in their earliest prototypical forms. As
Instantiation transpires, the innovation moves along towards its commercial realization,
and is modified by the prevailing needs of the target market. The final stage in the
Continuum of Innovation is Adoption. The adoption of an innovation instantiates what
some see as the necessary final stage in making it a commercial success [Davila, Epstein
et al. (2006)] – without which “good ideas” never really mature to true “innovations.”
However, as Machiavelli observed nearly 500 years ago (The Prince, 1513), the
attempt to diffuse the innovation across a new population can be a frustrating experience,
as it is a decision-making process on the part of the adopters and is completely under
their control – regardless of the benefits or technical quality of the innovation. Rudolf
Diesel (1858-1913) seemed to agree with Machiavelli, as he was paraphrased and quoted
by Boru Douthwaite in a recent article on Enabling Innovation [2006]:
6 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu
6. Collaboration
IBM periodically takes on the task of surveying hundreds of CEO‟s (and, separately,
CIO‟s) to help determine and report on the trends across industries, across the globe. The
2006 CEO study concentrated almost exclusively on innovation as a major emerging
theme among the leaders of some of the most influential and successful companies in the
world. Among the primary findings was the migration of considering innovation as
purely an exercise in invention to the infusion of an innovative approach across the
organization. In this regard, a synopsis of the CEO‟s suggestions yielded the following
recommendations [IBM (2006)]:
“Think broadly act personally and manage the innovation mix - Create and manage a
broad mix of innovation that emphasizes business model change.
Make your business model deeply different - Find ways to substantially change how
you add value in your current industry or in another.
Ignite innovation through business and technology integration - Use technology as an
innovation catalyst by combining it with business and market insights.
Defy collaboration limits - Collaborate on a massive, geography-defying scale to
open a world of possibilities.
Force an outside look… every time - Push the organization to work with outsiders
more, making it first systematic and, then, part of your culture.” [p. 3]
This is obviously not an agenda for simply generating ideation, improving invention,
increasing instantiation, or accelerating adoption – it is a mandate for integrating
innovation into every aspect of the business. As Thomas Kuczmarski puts it [1995],
“Innovation is a mindset. Though you can‟t touch it, smell it, hear it, see it, or taste it,
you can sense, think, and feel innovation. Innovation is best described as a pervasive
attitude that allows businesses to see beyond the present and create a future vision” [p. 3].
How does one, then, attempt to establish and manage a pervasive innovation mission
and climate that fosters the fulfillment of the business‟ future vision? Bettina von Stamm
and her colleagues at the London Business School have spent the last several years
attempting to answer just that question. In The Innovation Wave [von Stamm (2003)],
she states, “There is no one right way of infusing innovation into an organisation, it will
depend on the company‟s specific context, including company size, what kind of
innovation is sought, and which stage in the innovation journey the organisation is at” [p.
123]. However, there are guidelines – with specific objectives – that can be followed,
based on the experiences of successfully innovative companies:
“Addressing the challenges associated with innovation necessitates a holistic
approach that realises the importance of considering context and the need for aligning all
aspects of an organisation to the innovation goal. The five key areas where innovative
organisations do something differently from their less innovative counterparts are:
strategy and vision
leadership
culture [viz., “climate”]
processes
(physical) work environment” [p. 3]
As with most approaches that are declared to be “holistic,” it is an intentional
blending of all of the elements that produce the desired result – in this case, innovation.
8 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu
Without aligning “strategy and vision” with ideation and invention, for instance,
innovators may generate a whole host of novel product and services concepts, but have
no ability to execute and bring them to market – especially if they don‟t correspond to the
core competencies of the company. In this light, aligning innovators‟ thinking with the
organization‟s strategy and vision will likely result in more efficient expenditure of
innovator ideation and invention cycles. This drive towards alignment with corporate
strategy and vision must be balanced with a penchant for “out of the box” thinking, so
that ideas don‟t always result in “me too,” incremental innovations while ignoring
disruptive possibilities. As Tony Davila, Marc Epstein, and Robert Shelton suggest in
Making Innovation Work [2006], “Manage the natural tension between creativity and
value capture… Creativity without the ability to translate it into profits… can be fun but
it is unsustainable; profits without creativity is rewarding but only works in the short
term” [p. 11].
“Going global” means collaborating – not only to experience success in innovation,
but to align innovative efforts with the corporate vision. This is where effective
leadership plays a key role.
7. Leadership
a
When, in 1914, Thomas J. Watson joins the Computer-Tabulating Recording Company - the forerunner of
today's IBM – he brought with him the "Think" motto he coined when he managed the sales and advertising
departments at the National Cash Register Company. "Thought," he says, "has been the father of every advance
since time began. ‟I didn't think' has cost the world millions of dollars." Soon, the one-word slogan "THINK"
appears in large block-letter signs in offices and plants throughout the company. In 1915, Watson was quoted
in an audio broadcast to IBM employees as saying, “And we must study through reading, listening, discussing,
observing and thinking. We must not neglect any one of those ways of study. The trouble with most of us is that
we fall down on the latter - thinking - because it's hard work for people to think, And, as Dr. Nicholas Murray
Butler said recently, 'all of the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think.'”
Hence, the IBM laptop was called the ThinkPad in reference to its manual predecessor – an ubiquitous 3”x5”
paper notepad with the word “THINK” inscribed into its leather cover.
10 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu
b
The actual IBM presentation uses “culture,” “climate,” and “culture/climate” interchangeably. For
consistency, and in keeping with the discussion elsewhere this document regarding climate vs. culture, we will
only use the term, climate.
Growing Globally in the 21st Century 11
As with the vision discussion, keeping ideation aligned with corporate goals while
encouraging novel responses to turbulence is a matter for leadership at all levels of the
organization. The tenor for how this will be accomplished is usually set by the identified
leaders – the occupants of the C-suite and their managerial reports.
“Collaboration” is often overlooked in the literature on innovation, which retains the
fantastical notion of the independent inventor from the legends of folk heroes like
Thomas Edison and James Watt. The post-modern observation is that innovation occurs
in an intensely collaborative environment, where teams are working on their responses to
changes in the market – not just individuals. While this dynamic certainly makes room
for individual contributions, it relies on the multiple talents of the entire team to ideate,
invent, and instantiate meaningful innovations. This leads to the next point, “Diversity.”
“Diversity” is a key component for innovation. This tenet has been known and
implemented for ages. Innovation during the Renaissance in Europe was, in part, due to
the diversity of ideas that erupted from the network of nation-states that developed during
the Dark Ages; during this same period in China, the ubiquity of Confucianism may have
contributed to a “oneness of mind” that suppressed the diversity aspect of innovation.
While Dr. Hiner was at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore as a student and
instructor during the 1980‟s, it was standing policy to never hire its own graduates into
tenure track faculty positions, opting for the diversity of “new blood” from other schools
to fill those key positions. These examples acknowledge the role of diversity in
innovation. In a proactive way, organizations are encouraged to seek members with a
variety of backgrounds, approaches, and opinions to work collaboratively on innovation
projects, pulling in the energy of diversity from what Gryskiewicz calls, “the fringe”
[1999].
“Freedom” to innovate is expressed in both negative and positive ways. From the
negative standpoint, when potential innovators are encumbered by organizational
constraints – say, an overly risk-averse administration that actively punishes failure –
they will likely not venture attempts to ideate or invent “outside the box.” This will
result in incremental improvements to in-flight products and services, but will not
generate disruptive ideas that are inherently unproven and take time to mature into
revenue producers. Freedom, in this context, would be the suspension or removal of
those constraints. From a positive perspective, freedom is the encouragement to
experiment, and even to fail as a necessary part of discovering success. In addition,
positive freedom engenders a spirit of innovation throughout the organization, provides
access to human and technological resources to pursue invention and instantiation, and
rewards innovative efforts (whether or not the product or service is a commercial
success). “Thomas Watson, Jr., of IBM had the right approach to risk. He once said,
while discussing IBM‟s competitive challenges, „We don‟t have enough people out there
making mistakes.‟” [Hesselbein, Goldsmith et al. (1996)].
“Engagement,” as used here, entwines vision and leadership. It is the process of
aligning innovative thinking with corporate goals, and sets up the processes to reward
those whose innovations support those objectives. “Skills and mindset” represents the
iteration of engagement at the individual level – as the individual starts to “own” the
capability to innovate and is accountable to corporate goals, with the risk of failure
minimized – viz., not the level of risk, but potentially negative results of “failure.” Both
Growing Globally in the 21st Century 13
of these concepts – “engagement” and “skills and mindset” – are not necessarily
exclusive characteristics of an innovative climate, but do contribute to its overall
definition.
Having now framed the organizational aspects of innovation, collaboration, and
leadership, we turn to a discussion on the use of the technologies that are converging to
support the globalization of innovation.
8. Converging Technologies
Gen Y collaborators (born between 1977 and 2000) expect technology to be an integral
part of their collaborative efforts – from now on (and especially globally), it will not be
considered a “nice to have” faculty. A 2007 NASPAc study cited by Greenberg [2009]
indicated the following use of various social network technologies by Gen Y students in
the United States:
97% own a computer
94% own a cell phone
76% use Instant Messaging.
15% of IM users are logged on 24 hours a day/7 days a week
34% use websites as their primary source of news
28% author a blog and 44% read blogs
49% download music using peer-to-peer file sharing
75% of college students have a Facebook account
60% own some type of portable music and/or video device such as an iPod
In August 2006 an educator at the Arapahoe High School, Karl Fisch, created a
compelling PowerPoint presentation – “Did You Know?” – for a faculty meeting on
getting teachers focused on how to better prepare students to be successful in the
globalized, flatter world of the 21 st century. With the additional creative input from Dr.
Scott McLeod, Director, Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in
Education, Karl Fisch notes on his “shifthappens” wiki d:
“The presentation „went viral‟ on the Web in February 2007 and, as of June 2007, had
been seen by at least 5 million online viewers. Today the old and new versions of the
online presentation have been seen by at least 20 million people, not including the
countless others who have seen it at conferences, workshops, training institutes, and other
venues.”
The latest updated version of “Did You Know? 3.0” (see YouTube videoe) was
presented at a conference in Rome in November 2008 with even more dramatic evidence
of the powerful impact of converging technologies on Gen Y and Millennial (born after
2000) innovators.
After contemplating the powerful message of the “Did You Know? 3.0” video, one
can‟t help but question whether the world of the 21 st century is indeed getting flatter as
c
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, http://www.naspa.org: How Generation Y uses the Web
(Source: Connecting to the Net.Generation: What higher education professionals need to know about today's
students, by Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa NASPA; 2007)
d
http://www.shifthappens.wikispaces.com
e
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
14 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu
f
https://www.collaborationjam.com/
g
ibid
h
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmMl17jgGw&feature=related
Growing Globally in the 21st Century 15
the chat session (see link to IBM Research‟s Karen Keeter‟s presentation at the March
2009 3D Technology Learning Collaboration conference in Washington, D.C. i). The
"Sametime 3D" product was launched on June 25, 2009, and enables groups based in
different locations around the world to meet on a regular, periodic or impromptu basis in
these virtual worlds. With this converging technology, chat participants are able to freely
move via their personalized Avatars to an appropriate reusable meeting space, including a
theater-style amphitheatre, a boardroom and a collaboration space which can each be
used for impromptu or scheduled brainstorming sessions, status updates, town hall-style
meetings, rehearsals, and training classes to start. These spaces allow participants to,
literally, throw ideas on the wall during a meeting to "see what sticks," and to vote on,
organize, and save the most promising proposals. Avatars can make presentations to one
another, socialize, debate, or, literally, examine ideas and 3D objects from all angles.
What‟s next? In the continuum of innovation and converging technologies, how about
a wearable device with projected images to any surface – and, with ALL the data and
software applications you could ever imagine available to you at your fingertips? “Sixth
Sense” from Pattie Maes‟ laboratory at MITj definitely emerged as an “Idea Worth
Spreading” at the February 2009 TED‟s Conference.
“Going global” requires proactive leadership in leveraging technology to
collaboratively innovate.
9. Conclusions
What implications are suggested by these ideas and technology developments, especially
for companies who are looking to grow globally and yet retain their innovative edge?
Certainly, the management structure will need to be intentionally designed for
flexibility, creating leaders at all levels who will – within the confines of their job scope –
be empowered to innovate immediate solutions to the changing requirements of their
customers. As Stephen Covey explains in The Speed of Trust [Covey and Merrill 2006],
post-modern organizations that aspire to the level of flexibility and responsiveness to
their customers that is required in the 21st century will need to actively develop high
levels of trust. Global companies, even more so, base human resource relationships on
trust, if for no other reason than it is simply too difficult to closely supervise and
micromanage the individual efforts of a global workforce. Establishing trust is not only
an appealing, progressive goal – it is cost efficient as well.
As each of us may relate from our own personal experiences, trust is generated as a
product of continual communication with others and working together to meet common
objectives. (Of course, reliability – following through on commitments – also plays a
role in developing interpersonal as well as corporate trust. For the purpose of this paper,
we will focus on the communications aspect.) Technologies that are used to enhance
communication – with the goal of forming and maintaining relationships – will therefore
enhance levels of trust, especially when employees need to interact over long distances
and/or asynchronously. This results in greater collaborative innovation and productivity,
as well as in greater job satisfaction and sense of belonging.
i
ibid
j
http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
16 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu
“Trust” might be thought of as the “glue” that holds relationships – even and
especially global relationships – together. But how do those relationships actually factor
into organizational productivity? A clue to that is found in Clay Shirky‟s “Here Comes
Everybody” [Shirky 2008]. Shirky posits that there are four levels of participation in on-
line (and in-person) communities that comprise increasing degrees of sophistication – and
productivity:
(1) Sharing – is a one-way publishing activity, such as posting photographs on a
Facebook page;
(2) Cooperation – requires at least two people, and is a communication activity towards
a common goal of understanding, such as an instant-messaging or email
conversation;
(3) Collaboration – suggests cooperative activity among two or more people, to reach a
mutually-beneficial objective, such as designing an innovative solution; and
(4) Collective action – requires alignment among several individuals to work together,
on an on-going basis, to promote a particular agenda that has been reached by
consensus, such as participation in an on-line environmental campaign.
As the level of participation progresses, so do the levels of risk, interpersonal tension,
and the chance of failure. Hence, the requirement for trust accelerates as well.
It is the role of leadership to generate an atmosphere of trust, in which collaborative
(and even collective) innovation can and does occur. Meeting this organizational
mandate, when accompanied by providing the technical tools to support ever-more
sophisticated modes of interpersonal communication, bodes well for enterprises seeking
to take their innovative success to a global level.
References
Amabile, T. M., C. N. Hadley, et al. (2003). Creativity Under the Gun. Boston, MA,
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Brown, J. S. (2003). Research That Reinvents the Corporation. Boston, MA, Harvard
Business School Publishing.
Burgelman, R. A. and L. R. Sayles (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy,
Structure, and Managerial Skills. New York, NY, The Free Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Boston, MA, Havard Business School Publishing.
Christensen, C. M. (2003). The Innovator's Dilemma. New York, NY, HarperCollins.
Christensen, C. M., S. D. Anthony, et al. (2004). Seeing What's Next? : Using the
theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Christensen, C. M. and M. E. Raynor (2003). The Innovator's Solution: Creating and
sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Publishing.
Coburn, P. (2006). The Change Function: Why some technologies take off and others
crash and burn. New York, NY, Portfolio.
Covey, S. M. R. and R. R. Merrill (2006). The Speed of Trust : The one thing that
changes everything. New York, Free Press.
Craumer, M. (2003). The Sputtering R&D Machine. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Davila, T., M. J. Epstein, et al. (2006). Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It,
Measure It, and Profit from It. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Wharton School Publishing.
Growing Globally in the 21st Century 17
Wiefels, P. (2002). The Chasm Companion A fieldbook to Crossing the Chasm and
Inside the Tornado. New York, NY, HarperCollins.
Wolpert, J. D. (2003). Breaking Out of the Innovation Box. Boston, MA, Harvard
Business School Publishing.