Blog site change

Hi

I have moved my blog site from wordpress.com to a hosted space at my internet service provider. I ticked the box to move the site two weeks ago and Whoosh! – it all happened faster than expected and not as planned. My intent was to copy the content to the new hosting site, figure out some of the new features, and then redirect my domain http://www.cunningham.org.za to the new site. But this is not how it worked out. To my surprise, clicking on “import site”also redirected my domain name automatically. Then I hit a few small snags along the way, one being that my internet service provider had to make quite a few changes to my administrative rights to enable the site to work as expected.

If you are a regular reader, or receive this blog via the email subscription function, please remember that the new address for the site is now

www.cunningham.org.za

In the coming weeks I will focus this blogsite on my ongoing development of an innovation and organisational toolkit. In the words of Harold Jarche, this site and its content will be in perpetual beta. Yes, I will be publishing half-baked ideas, a-ha! ideas and inspirations. Those that know me are used to these in any case, and I am often relieved to hear how people combine my ideas with their own. Refined ideas, fully baked concepts and tools will be published in more formal articles, papers or elsewhere, with links from my blogsite.

It is also necessary to explain that I am also shifting my praxis from an economic development focus towards and organisational development, decision support and innovation focus. In the last few years my focus was in any case aimed more towards decision makers in meso institutions, most of which do not identify with the label of “development organisation”. I don’t think any of my friends or clients would be surprised by this, organizational and leadership development was always at the core of what I have been doing.

I remain committed to working with organisations that through their behavior strengthen the competitiveness, economic evolution and systemic change in societies, whether they are public or private, big or small.

I will explain more about this shift in the next few posts.

Rigid agencies in complex economic change processes

The last few days I have been a participant in a conference about transformative innovation policy. It was quite a treat to be a participant in an event and not to be a moderator or speaker. The Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium is an initiative of the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex. Many other governments, research alliances and academics are part of this initiative.

It was great to hear the voices of the gurus whose material I usually only get to read. A core concept of the initiative is the idea that there are 3 frames of innovation policy (Schot & Steinmuller, 2016). In my vocabulary a frame is the punctuated equilibrium that exists between paradigm shifts. The first frame of innovation policy was mainly about R&D and regulation. The second frame shifted towards national systems of innovation and entrepreneurship. The third and most recent shift is towards transformative innovation policy. I will not go into the description of the frames, I want to focus on one thought that struck me during the conference, and it is about the organizations (or agents) that are supposed to help on this process of transformative innovation.

Economic change is a complex process. Transformative innovation tries to achieve a particular (broad) kind of change in a society. A wide range of organizations in the science, technology and innovation domain would have to collaborate and even change themselves to enable or promote transformative change. While some changes may have to do with technology development, adaptation or other kinds of innovation, other changes would be more about social technologies like improving cross silo collaboration, mobilizing a broader range of civil actors into innovation activities, experimenting with policy and learning by doing. However, many these organizations themselves are often very rigid, hierarchical, and to some degree clumsy, especially in developing countries. What I mean with clumsy is that research requires a degree of planning, organizations need to coordinate across disciplines and themes, and that governance and oversight remains necessary and important. So when there is a sudden shift these organizations struggle to change quickly. They are rigid, and many of their internal systems and the predominant organizations culture are designed to withstand distraction, and to plow straight on through obstacles, resistance and confusion. So to a large extent, many of these organizations are primed to ignore weak signals, soft voices and serendipity.

These kinds of organizations are my clients. So let me not complain too much about their ability to make sense of what is going on around them. The ideas shared in this conference would inspire many of my clients and friends working in the Department of Science and Technology in South Africa, and the network of academics, researchers and technology centers we have here. I am excited about many of the concepts, but also weary that there is little space to fail or time to lose due to political and societal pressure to show results.radike_72dpi20130703_MG_0435

 

Berlin: History from the perspective of a building

Every year our family travel together to Germany for a company meeting, and to host the annual Summer Academy. Here we have learned how in Germany, especially in Berlin, the community can reflect on the past in order to participate in the present and better navigate the future. Our family is always struck by the many museums and events  that looks not only at German history, but also mistakes and darker periods in Germany’s past.

20170704_lightshow01

One such event is the annual Media and Light display that is projected against the facade of the Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus over the river Spree. This thirty-minute  installation is entitled “Dem deutschen Volke – Eine parlamentarische Spurensuche. Vom Reichstag zum Bundestag” (To the German People – A journey through parliamentary history from the Reichstag to the Bundestag). It shows the history of parliamentarianism in Germany and of the Reichstag Building in Berlin. This journey through the past 130 years shows how the Reichstag building is used and has always been a reflection of the state of German democracy.’ The official site of this show is hosted on the Bundestag website. The show is 30 minutes long and is repeated every evening from mid May to Mid September

Imagine we could do this in South Africa? Would that not allow us to have a more meaningful discussion of our past, to help us understand how we are all shaped by decisions, actions and influences from the past? What would the Union Buildings tell us?

This display is special to our family for several reasons:

  • there are several light sources.  Video footage, shadows and colors are projected onto several buildings, while music from Paul van Dyk (Wir Sind Wir) and Die Toten Hosen (Tage Wie Diese) fades in and out around the narrative. When the narrator talks about the wall, a spiked fence shadow is projected over one of the facades (see picture above), while later the whole building is behind barbed fence.
  • the sound is amazing, even if the narrative is in German.
  • the people we take with us are touched by the footage, even if they don’t understand a word. These are typically participants in the Mesopartner Summer Academy from many developing countries where they too tend to sweep past decisions under the carpet.
  • this display also reveals something about the German culture that we admire, the ability to debate, discuss and deliberate in a very transparent way. Even if it is about taboo decisions.
  • we get the idea of one nation, even there are different opinions. Even if this is expressed in German.

20170704_lightshow02

Head over to Youtube. Here is one link to a show recorded in 2016. Here is another link. Alternatively, search for Film- und Licht­projektion im Parlaments­viertel.

If you have seen the show, share your thoughts, your photo or your impressions. Some German translations of some of the text would also be welcome!

How difficult it is to change an organization around a simple insight

In the last few months I have been going back to my change and organizational development roots. I have been on a journey to reconnect my more recent insights on systemic change and innovation systems with my earlier experience in process consulting, supporting organizations to change. I have rediscovered many old ideas that are still extremely valid and useful. I even have to wonder how I forgot some things that once were so important to me. Also, some things that did not seem all that important 10 years ago now seems far more important, but I digress.

Let me share an example of how a more recent insight about innovation became more powerful when I looked at it from an organizational development perspective. In my training work on innovation systems, I often lay a foundation with some simple concepts. One such building block is the idea that there are three kinds of innovation: product, process and business model. Product innovation is the easiest (you need to mainly be creative, know something about either a key technology or a key market), with process and business model innovation often being more difficult because you might need more abstract thinking capability, technical and others skills from beyond your organizations as well as a creative imagination. Easy enough, all the participants nod their heads in agreement and indicate that I can move on. Yet, back at the office this was not so simple.

I noticed that a few of my favorite technology and R & D centres here in South Africa were struggling with this very simple idea. They were mainly focused on product innovation, arguing that their behavior is shaped by the incentives created by public grants that supported them to develop products for wanna-be entrepreneurs (I wrote about the importance of technological capability here). It was convenient to blame the public grants for this incentive, and everybody knew that the results less than ideal (many of these wanna-be entrepreneurs did not stand a chance in the market as they lack technological capability and or business experience). Thus the Status Quo was maintained with everybody talking about changing but not really making the shift.  Until the easy funding became less easy. It was at this point that some management teams realized just how entrenched the culture of product innovation was, and how dependent these organizations have become on public grants.

So I had the task of coaching a team to think through this change process, to reduce their dependence on public funding by helping their team to shift to process innovation from a mainly product innovation focus. This meant that instead of designing, prototyping and manufacturing a particular product for a wanna-be entrepreneur, they shift their attention to helping existing companies or entrepreneurs with a track record improve, enhance or expand their process technologies so that they can themselves develop, prototype and manufacture new products.

Interestingly enough, the technological capabilities for product innovation and process innovation for this particular engineering group have a lot in common. It is mainly the internal processes, arrangements of teams, self assessment criteria (are we making progress?) and the identity of the organization that had to change to make this shift. This in itself meant some business model innovation was required. They also had to become better in forming partnerships with other technology providers. In complexity thinking language, the physical technologies and entrepreneurial technologies will remain largely the same, but many additional or different social technologies would be needed. For instance, some additional skillsets are needed that are more expensive and not typical to technology centre at universities. Lastly, this process focus shift would require far more work on the premises of the client, and also working with many other unknown technologies and sectoral requirements, which meant that concepts such as self-management, temporary work teams and many parallel projects also had to be tried out. It started sounding more and more like a completely new organization and a major disruption that this client could not afford. Starting over was simply not an option. And the individuals in the current team was a real asset.  If this team could not make this shift then very few would be able to make it.

It was agreed that we needed an adaptive process, a series of small experiments that allowed them to try some process innovation applications. The horizons of innovation provided a useful framework (Tim Kastelle inspired me about this model, recently Ralph-Christian took it further). We captured their current technological and market capabilities and agreed that this focus had to be maintained while we find ways to explore the adjacent technological and market spaces without breaking the bank. Tim Kastelle always say 70% of the focus should be on the current block (horizon 1). We did this by first looking which process innovations would be interesting to some of their existing markets (we found a few). The we looked at where their current technological capability could be used in new markets, but in a process innovation way. This could be done by investigating some economic sectors a little deeper.  Thus most of the energy of management remains on the current technological base and markets, with an additional focus on process innovations in an adjacent markets and technologies. We were all surprised that these ideas required very little additional funding (at first), with more specialized equipment and skills required if any of these ideas took hold.

The moral of the story is this. It sounds simple to say “shift attention from product innovation to process innovation”. People might actually agree this is important. But to make this shift requires many internal changes. A process of exploration and mental simulation using a simple framework was all it took to identify some areas where the current management team with its current resources could try several new ideas, without much change to the business plan or operations of the organization. I am very pleased with this outcome.

Thanks to the team for trusting me to facilitate this process. You know who you are!

Who should be thinking about innovation in your organization?

I am often asked whether one person or function in an organization is sufficient to coordinate and manage innovation. The answer is “no”. While I agree that it is very hard to get whole organizations to think about innovation, it certainly is a distributed capability.

Let me just recap. Back in 2015 I wrote that most innovation gurus identify four functions of innovation and technology management:

  1. Searching and scanning for new ideas and technologies, both within and beyond4 functions of innovation management - Page 1 the organization. This includes looking at technologies that could affect the clients of the organization, and technologies that could disrupt markets and industries.
  2. Comparing, selecting and imagining how different technologies could impact the organization, its markets and its own innovation agenda.
  3. Next comes integrating or deploying the technology or innovation into the organization. This includes adjusting processes and systems, scaling up implementation, and project managing the whole change process.
  4. The last step is often overlooked, but new technology and innovation often makes new ideas, innovations and improvements possible. I call this last step exploiting the benefits of a new technology or idea. This could involve leveraging some of the additional benefits or features of a technology, perhaps by creating a new business unit focused on an adjacent market or particular offering.

Now these four functions could obviously be coordinated at a central or top management level, but at that level it would probably look at broader innovations in terms of high level product positioning, reforming key business processes, or considering different business models. Some would call this strategic innovation management. However, this function depends on many other decision makers, technicians, business unit managers and experts distributed throughout the organization to be repeating these four functions within their own context. Perhaps some individuals or units are more focused on certain technological capabilities, while others may be more focused on specific markets, territories and client types. Within each of these focus areas, individuals or teams responsible for the coordination of innovation would have to make sure they tap into the knowledge and understanding of their internal experts and staff, their external networks and even beyond. So the four functions are repeated at lower levels, each time more granular or domain specific (or context sensitive) than levels higher up.

Perhaps innovation coordinators at higher levels would be more focused on trends beyond the organization and even beyond their clients or markets, and most certainly the higher up you go the longer the planning time horizons would be. A great example of this kind of structure is explained in a forthcoming article by Jeffrey Immelt of GE in the Harvard Business Review. In GE they had both the top down functions, but then they also paid great attention to creating from the bottom up similar functions. During this process Jeffrey explains that they realized they needed to create these structures within sub regions, with more autonomy to make context specific decisions.

Within a larger organization, good ideas (a.k.a innovations) from one unit is not immediately copied elsewhere. This is the wrong approach to scaling. Instead it goes in at the first function (Scanning) of other units, where the suitability of the idea and its effect on the business unit or technological capability is assessed. This means that top management can detect good ideas in how rapidly they are taken up within the organization. Perhaps they need to play a role in making innovations that seem to be working in one area known to others. This reduces the dependence on “strategic bets” by top management. Also this means that scanning is not only about looking beyond the organization, it could also mean scanning internally in other units or over the whole organization to try and detect ideas that are being tried out, taken up or discarded.

You cannot centralize innovation at the levels of product, process and business models only at the top of an organization, even in a small company. So you have to find ways to distribute this capability throughout the organization. It is not smart if only higher levels of management are scanning the horizon, trying to wrap their minds around emerging trends like the impact of Amazon on an industry, Industry 4.0, the internet of things or additive manufacturing. Perhaps at higher levels there should be a push to get more people elsewhere in the organizations empowered and mobilized to make sure that the four functions of innovation are distributed, that more people are scanning, more people are thinking about the future, trends and change.

In the image included in this post, the arrows are flowing down, because I believe that leaders need to push the push functions down in their organization. As these functions are distributed through the organization, it would become more important to figure out how to feed the ideas, insights and innovation from the distributed organizational system to improve organization wide strategic insight. Also, the up arrows would make it possible for cross pollination, where ideas that works in one area are fed into the scanning functions of another business unit.

A final point is that learning is not only about what works (down arrows and up arrows). Learning is also about remembering what did not work, but also, what was not tried (arrows ending in space). Organizations that maintain up a repertoire of (failed or half-baked) ideas have a better stock of concepts that they can consider, recombine and re-imagine as they go forward.

A final word to technological institutions, industry associations and programs aimed at improving industry or regional innovation and competitiveness. These four functions are not only for inside a firm, they are also relevant to your organization. But these four functions typically play out a the level of the innovation system, the network or industry. Somebody somewhere better be scanning the horizon for what is coming, what is being tried and what seems to be working, and so on. If your industry is not scanning, then the long term viability of the industry you are trying to promote is under threat. This is where think tanks, academic research centers and strong industry associations (meso organizations) that can promote industrial change, collaboration and modernization become very important.

Contact me if I can help your organization improve the four functions of innovation within your organization and between your organization and others.

New publication: Knowledge, Technologies and Innovation for Development in the Agenda 2030: Revisiting Germany’s Contribution

The discussion paper I co-authored with Frank Waeltring recently for the GIZ and the BMZ is now available online. The name of the paper is “Knowledge, Technologies and Innovation for Development in the Agenda 2030: Revisiting Germany’s Contribution“. The paper was commissioned by the GIZ Sector project “Development Orientated Trade and Investment Policy and Promotion” on behalf of the BMZ.

Here is the foreword of the paper. It explains in a nutshell what this document is about.

It was a great privilege to be asked by the GIZ on behalf of BMZ to write a discussion paper on Germany’s contribution towards the Agenda 2030 from a knowledge, technology and innovation perspective as well as a great responsibility. Much deliberation and reflection has taken place in the last six years around this topic, but this work has by no means reached a conclusion as there is much more that can yet be done.

We support the view that a broader understanding of the role of science, technology and innovation is needed, and that building the capacity and capability of innovation systems in developing countries is vital. This is precisely what the Agenda 2030 and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda are demanding from the international development community and developing countries. The long-overdue global consensus on the role of science, technology and innovation as a cross- cutting theme is an exciting development, one which requires a re-think of traditional sectoral or topical development programmes and how they can benefit from this theme.

Our work in this field has made us well aware of Germany’s long-standing track record as a development partner in science, technology, knowledge and innovation support for develop- ing countries. This has been occurring not only on the of cial public policy level, but also on
a broader level where universities, science and technology organisations, economic development programmes and private companies are interacting, sharing, learning and exploring with counterparts in developing countries. The sheer diversity, depth and scale of the options that Germany can now offer may even appear to developing countries to be overwhelming and hard to navigate.

Although many elements of the German Innovation System are plainly visible and well known, beneath the surface there are elements that even our German counterparts sometimes overlook or take for granted. The German Innovation System is a complex one that is still evolving. It has a long history, and many of the current system features were shaped by intentional and unintentional decisions made long ago. Developing countries need help to fathom which ideas can be transferred and learned from, and which ideas are not suitable to their particular context. Furthermore, there are many factors that are not so obvious, which makes it harder to learn from or transfer ideas from Germany to developing contexts. In this respect we should always be aware that Germany’s science and technology activities are organised on a highly decentralised way, whereas in many developing countries science and technology decisions are often more centralised.

As Mesopartner we often work both on the side of the developing country and on the German side to broker relations, build networks, enable exchange and support knowledge and technology transfer. We have seen the extent to which German technology, support and expertise have made a difference in the countries in which we work, even when science, technology and innovation are not the main issues being dealt with. But we have also seen the shortcomings of too great a focus on hardware, training, patents and blueprints and too little emphasis on human capacity, partnerships, networks and adaptation to the local context.

 

We would love to hear your feedback on this discussion paper. It provided us with an opportunity to rework much of our previous work on innovation systems promotion in developing countries. There is also a chapter about the evolution of the German Innovation System.

You are welcome to also visit the publications page on this website where several of the other papers that I have contributed to are listed.

Spring cleaning my blog

radike_72dpi20130703_MG_0380

Yesterday I started the long overdue process of spring cleaning on my blog site. As we approach the end of winter here in Pretoria it seemed like a good idea to spend time on this long overdue task.

Let me start by thanking those who have chosen to receive my blog updates via email. Whenever I post something I am always conscious that I am contributing to the unread messages load in your inbox. I would love to hear from you if there is anything that I can do to make the emails you receive from me something to look forward to.

Let me tell you what I have done so far in my spring cleaning process.

Yesterday I figured out how to create a new page from a post category. So if you look on the top right of the menu bar on the blog site, you will see  “Globetrotting”. This Globetrotting page will automatically update every time I write something about my travels. This is a great feature of WordPress, as it allows me to create pages where a lot of related content can come together. I decided to start with globetrotting because many of my fellow South Africans are always very intrigued by the places I visit and the things I see. At this moment there is only one post, but I promise to write some more soon.

On the left side of the page there is a category page. I want to remove this, but before I do, I ticked the option to show how many articles I have posted under each category. I am in the process of tidying up the categories, so there is a hierarchy of sub topics that you will be able to see. I will leave this category page for a few days, I find it interesting to see how many articles I have under each category. It also reveals which topics I have paid enough attention to. Let me know what you think and whether you think any particular topics deserve more attention. The tag cloud is still on the left. Some people told me they like the tag cloud, but to me it looks messy.

Take the poll at the bottom of the post to let me know which one you prefer, the category list, tag cloud or site menu?.

I have also tried to tidy up the home page of the blog and updated some of the links. I disabled the silly site menu that was on the left hand side. Any suggestions on how to improve the blog would be welcome.

 

PS. This is my first poll, I hope it works!

%d bloggers like this: