Are We Getting Lost in Processes?
One of the main critiques of innovation practices is that they seem playful and chaotic, with post-its everywhere and buzzwords like “brainstorming sessions,” “bootcamps,” or “hackathons.” For many accustomed to structured, waterfall project management, these practices can seem hard to embed within their way of working. A common reaction is to take a step back and think, “I’m not an innovator” or “I’m not the creative type.”
In response, innovation teams often emphasize that innovation is, in fact, far from chaotic. It can be quite structured and even boring. Ultimately, it’s a process of analyzing various approaches to solve a challenge, applying frameworks to identify what’s essential, assessing the impact through specific metrics, and tweak the process when is not satisfactory. We often ask critical questions about what and why we’re measuring, and discussions can turn into long hour conversations, isn’t necessarily exciting, but it is necessary to question why we do what we do. 😉
The way we explain these processes, however, can confuse people. We often present them as linear, step-by-step guides. Yet, in practice, they’re rarely linear, and workshops rarely capture the full picture. Bridging the gap between the “safe space” of an innovation program and the real-world implementation is a challenge we’re actively working to address.
What approaches have we tried?
1. Prioritizing Ownership of Solutions
It’s exciting to define challenges and bring teams together to co-create solutions. When these challenges come from senior leaders, it helps build buy-in across the organization. Yet, enthusiasm often fades by the program’s end, and no team takes ownership to implement the solution. This happens often with partner-run hackathons, where challenges are defined, but solutions end up as polished presentations rather than actions.
To avoid getting lost in the excitement of the process, we’ve begun prioritizing challenges and solutions emerging from the teams who will implement them. Often, they haven’t implemented solutions yet due to limited time or resources, not a lack of ideas. By supporting their own identified challenges, innovation teams can help bridge the gap between ideation and action.
2. Becoming Connectors, Not Controllers
Innovation teams have a unique vantage point within organizations, acting as natural connectors who bring together people from diverse backgrounds, from inside or outside the organizational structure, to solve problems creatively.
Rather than becoming isolated labs for “out-there” experiments, innovation teams can be inviting spaces where assumptions are set aside, and collaboration is encouraged. To succeed in this connector role, trust is key, it needs to be built first through early wins and, over time, validated with support from senior leaders.
3. Providing More than Just Financial Resources
Innovation teams have become adept at financing challenges, often launching calls to identify impactful projects or startups. Successful initiatives provide visibility and grant funds to develop solutions with real-world potential. Yet, some programs become overly process-heavy, depleting participants’ energy and tangible outcomes aren’t clear.
In our “agile incubator” program at ITC, we tried providing more than just funding. We offered teams funding and facilitated the hiring process of junior technical talent to build their first prototypes. By providing a holistic package, teams began seeing the Innovation Lab as a practical partner, not just a funding source.
Bridging the gap between the structured environment of an innovation program and real-world impact is challenging. Larger organizations with diverse teams may have varying practices, tailored to local needs. But I hope these reflections show that we’re not alone in tackling these issues. Together, we can keep improving our innovation practices, taking distance from any “innovation theatre,” and leveraging our sector’s convening power to achieve true transformation.
