[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

We will now describe each stage. We outline the critical issues that organizations need to pay attention to when executing each stage, and the tensions that arise when doing so. Differences between organizations that have robust innovation processes and those that have brittle processes will also be articulated. Table 1 contains a summary of critical differences between organizations that have robust and brittle processes for innovation.

Generation and mobilization

Idea generation is the process whereby new ideas are created, whether through redefinition of concepts, changes in processes, creation of new components of service, or development of new services (Von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000). Mobilization is where modifications to any existing products, processes, services, or frameworks of thought lead to the movement of ideas from one location (physical or logical) to another (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Ideas may originate internally (e.g. employees) or externally (e.g. customers, business partners, academia, government, and competitors) (Desouza & Awazu, 2005; Desouza, Awazu, & Jasimuddin, 2005). Not all ideas need to be generated (or created) from scratch; some ideas can be transported to a domain from allied or foreign domains. Consider the following quote:

'Ideas for us can come from our employees and also our customers and even our business partners; we even occasionally read the academic journals ... But an idea to a local department--let's say the ABC group--can come from the XYZ group ... mobilizing ideas that reside in one corner of the organization is important.... Ideas that are good can have a multiplicity of uses.'--VP of Global Strategy, Financial Services Organization

Generation of ideas

Ideas can be generated in playful, relaxed environments (Dougherty & Takacs, 2004) or in environments of need (e.g. as when a firm is in trouble and needs to change) (Mueller, McKinley, Mone, & Barker, 2001). People who don't adapt well to new environments and who don't integrate wholly into the organizational culture can lead to startling innovations by unsettling norms and assumptions (Sutton, 2002). On the other hand, creating an adaptive, warm, and constant learning environment where employee input is valued can also lead to innovation (Pettigrew, Massini, & Numagami, 2000). Ideas can seem instantly accessible or incredibly bizarre and risky, but generating ideas consistently seems to require extreme democratization, wherein all employees' input is valued, or an unsettling, learning-focused environment where 'borrowing' from other industries and other people is encouraged (Hargadon & Sutton, 2000).

One vital tension that occurs in the generation of ideas is in the balance between generating ideas through environments of playfulness versus environments of need. An environment of acceptance, playfulness and thinking that emphasizes unusual analogies can be found at some of the idea 'factories' like IDEO. In these environments, hierarchies are demolished regularly, and toys and mechanisms are commonly found in the environment to encourage free association. Lateral communication is encouraged and collaboration is expected. At the other end of the spectrum are environments of need. In these situations, problems are paramount and solutions are sought. Consider the following case: Proctor and Gamble's 'connect and develop' strategy seeks solutions from the outside, and then develops them for internal use. Proctor and Gamble uses a network of small and medium-sized businesses, retired scientists, and seasoned advertising groups to find solutions to problems articulated within its organization (Huston & Sakkab, 2006). Customer needs are identified and then structured into 'problems' that are given to the network. Thus, in some instances, idea generation is outsourced to competent experts who supplement internal knowledge.

Balancing between the tensions of generating ideas via loose (playful) versus tightly controlled (problem-driven) mechanisms is critical. Robust organizations combine these two mechanisms, and will use them for the problems for which they would be most effective. Loose mechanisms work well for ideas that are emergent in nature and those that do not fit pre-defined problems or areas of investigation. Ideas that emerge from these environments are normally abstract, and may be broad and overarching. On the other hand, ideas that emerge as solutions to problems are narrower in scope and operational in nature. Not all sectors of the organization will respond to the two mechanisms in a similar fashion. For instance, engineering teams might arrive at ideas more easily with problem-driven solutions, whereas marketing teams will thrive in loose and playful environments. Customer-driven problems normally appear in the form of need-based statements, while working through un-chartered territories, such as the future strategic direction of a division or product, might be better handled through playful settings that are more tolerant of free-flowing ideas and unrestricted thinking.

Mobilization of ideas

Not all ideas need to be generated from scratch. The movement of ideas from a domain where they are well-known to another domain where they are fresh can inspire idea generation by revealing assumptions in practices, processes, or products. For instance, if the marketing department has been using a wiki to brainstorm and refine ideas, and that wiki is shown to the research and development unit of a large organization, the R&D unit may recognize the need for a similar process, and ideas may be generated to meet its newly discovered need. It is crucial to consider wiki as a potential way to increase and encourage idea generation.

The mobilization of ideas can also originate from traditional, entrenched places and move them to more nurturing environments. For example, the reason spin-offs are philosophically and physically separated from major firms is because the ideas which are at the roots of these new organizations were not likely to have been well-received in the original organization. Firms may purposely send ideas outside the firm to provide a more inviting and open environment, and/or to minimize risk (Chesbrough, 2003). If the idea fails and the spin-off goes under, the main business will be largely untouched. Large organizations are particularly likely to do this both to avoid disrupting day-to-day business and to reduce negative reactions or the image of failure.

Idea mobilization can be extremely difficult. There are two main reasons for this: idea hoarding and context specificity. Some people perceive knowledge as power and feel that sharing ideas weakens their position; some organizational cultures encourage such notions. When people hoard ideas or act as unofficial gatekeepers of innovative ideas, the organization cannot benefit from the innovations. Competition can encourage this tendency. Sometimes, a unit clings to ideas even if it is not the best group to nurture or grow those ideas. In these instances, the individual or team may want the glory of developing the idea fully, even though the organization as a whole would benefit from idea transfer.

Another barrier arises because some ideas are context-specific and simply will not be useful or accepted in other environments. This does not invalidate or devalue the ideas themselves, nor does it imply that the unit that did not absorb the idea failed. Sometimes there is simply a lack of fit, either organizationally or within teams (Chua & Lam, 2005). For instance, brainstorming in front of a whiteboard may work spectacularly well with some departments. However, a group of chemists or electricians may find it more useful to share ideas or new approaches by using and manipulating physical objects like test tubes or circuit boards. Another common instance in which mobility of ideas becomes problematic due to context is the global movement of ideas. Ideas that are culturally-ingrained in one community might not make sense in a foreign area. For instance, the manner of handling customer service calls needs to differ depending on the specific cultural contexts of the customers. Incentive schemes to encourage customers to share ideas will also differ across geographical regions. Organizations thus must tread the fine line between trying to generalize and diffuse ideas across an organization and filtering ideas to suit the particular context.

The outputs of this stage are ideas that could alter business models, services or products, or could improve upon those models, services or products. This can be achieved by changing the thoughts, feelings, or reactions of people so that they perceive old problems in new ways or see other ideas in new contexts, applications or uses.

Success indicators

Organizations with robust innovation programs have clearly articulated guidelines and stages to help in the recognition and construction of ideas. We might begin at the level of a thought or hunch, a personal idea. The idea generator will then need to do some homework on the idea to gauge its potential. In doing so, the idea generator will go through an internal refinement process and will document the idea, if the idea is valuable. At this stage, the idea may be ready to be shared, but only in a limited fashion. The employee might use the idea in his or her daily work and also encourage team members to try out the idea and provide feedback. Through this process, the idea is refined and improved, or is deemed to have limited potential and discarded. If the idea moves forward, it might be considered for greater mobilization and organization-wide advocacy and screening processes, which we discuss next.

Having clear guidelines to demarcate what is an idea and what is not, and to demarcate the level of robustness and growth of an idea, helps avoid information overload. Robust organizations take a lot of care to identify domains of interest, problems of interest, and other zones of innovation. These are communicated to all internal and external stakeholders of the organization. Having these clearly defined helps focus the creative energies of all. In arriving at these zones of innovation, the robust organization not only considers it current position in the marketplace, customer needs, product and service enhancements, but also the future strategic direction of the organization. Moreover, they take the time to clearly specify which group within the organization should be primarily responsible for innovation in a given space. It is important to stress that only primary groups are identified, so as not to discourage others from attempting to innovate in a given space. The rationale behind identification of a primary group is to focus resources and avoid battles and in-fighting between groups.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates