Is a Chief Innovation Officer Necessary?
Editor | On 01, Jan 2010
Message: 413Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Thursday, 29th March 2007
I'm finding more references/quotes to chief innovation officers at some larger organizations. Is this really necessary? Is it comparable to having a MBB for six sigma? Anybody ever worked with one?
Message: 420
Posted by: Terry
Posted on: Saturday, 31st March 2007
I'm interested in this topic also, and especially (for those who have CInO's in their organizations or worked with one), what are the primary duties, responsibilities and success metrics?
Terry
Message: 433
Posted by: David Silverstein
Posted on: Tuesday, 3rd April 2007
Great question. And the answer, as you may well imagine, is “maybe.” Back in the 70's the question was, 'does every company need a CFO.' In the late 80's and 90's, it was, “does every company need a CIO,' (chief information officer, in this case). The answer is it depends on the needs of your business. At a very high level, there are three approaches companies are taking to innovation:
1. We need some specific innovative problems solving skills, for example for our BBs who are running into unique problems for which more innovative solutions are required. This case probably doesn't require a CIO, just some good education.
2. We need to develop more innovative products and services to drive growth. This case MIGHT require a CIO, but their responsibilities are somewhat confinded to R&D and product or service development.
3. We need to become more innovative in our company in general. We need to drive a real and lasting culture change. The future of our business depends on it. This case is the one where a CIO is most needed.
The point is, as in most cases, there's not a one-size-fits-all answer to your question. those looking for such answers are the ones that get accused of adopting the fad of the year. those comapnies that think things through and craft answers that meet their needs are the ones that realy succeed in the long term.
Message: 444
Posted by: Praveen Gupta
Posted on: Thursday, 5th April 2007
Hi David:
Well, when electricity was discovered, corporations used to have Chief Electricity OFficer. I suppose whenever a new focus is needed, new officers are appointed. Currently, profitable growth and innovation are being considered necessary to succeed, we are seeing people are appointed to lead growth and innovation. Some innovation leaders are called Chief Innovation Officer, and others are called Innovation Managers.
According to our research, we believe Chief Innovation Officer requires skills in managing intellectual capital, that is HR side, need technology experience that comes from CTO, and requires to deal with information and idea management, that comes from IT professionals. Thus, CIO requires a combination of expertise in HR, IT, and Technology.
It is still an evolving role, and as business models are changing it will take a while to be recognized and institutionalized the appointment of new CIO, not the Chief information officer. Leaders in anyone of the fields with knowledge of the other two could become Chief Innovation Officer.
This is my take on CIO. Any comments?
Praveen
Message: 451
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Thursday, 5th April 2007
David, Thank you for your response. I certainly understand the 'maybe' required in your answer. But your answer leads me to ask another question.
What sort of experience would an ideal CIO need? Based on this site, they'd need to know TRIZ and other innovation methods. But from what I've read, it doesn't seem like a background most CIO's hold. Is it just a question of catching up to the needs? Are the companies getting ahead of themselves – however inadvertently?
Message: 452
Posted by: David Silverstein
Posted on: Thursday, 5th April 2007
Another great question. To answer it I go back to my roots in six sigma myself, and to that of many of my clients today. Back “in the day” no one had experience with six sigma, yet there were, and still are today, many successful implementations. The people leading these implemenations often have no experience at all–and I like it that way. They tend to be more open minded and learn to do things the way their companies needs things to be done. When you bring too much experiene to the table, you often are biased by your past. The ultimate answer to your question is, as usual, strong leadership skills and the ability and desire to learn.
There's an old saying, “we hire people for their knowlege and experience, and fire them for their style and personality.” In english that means that sometimes we put too much value in experience and “credentials” and not nearly enough into personality and leadership style.
In a nutshell, I don't think experience is all that important and I don't think that a CIO needs to know TRIZ or other “methods” to be successful.
Message: 454
Posted by: Terry
Posted on: Friday, 6th April 2007
David,
With all due respect, please reexamine your thinking on, “I don't think experience is all that important” for a Chief Innovation Officer. We're talking about not only the organization's top leader for innovation, but an officer of the company . . . one who must put his/her functional responsibility in the context of all other issues and responsibilities facing the organization.
Surely, experience–of some kind–must be not only important, but critical to the Innovation Officer's role? Are you suggesting that any good manager or leader–even one with no innovation background–could effectively lead the Innovation work in any company?
Regards,
Terry
Message: 455
Posted by: Stefan
Posted on: Friday, 6th April 2007
Do your requirements for a CIO change based on the industry?
Message: 464
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Tuesday, 10th April 2007
Back “in the day”? The story on you is that you came from the Seagate deployment. Not as a Black Belt or a Green Belt but as a project champion.
The Seagate deployment was in the 97-98 time frame which means that Motorola, Allied Signal, ABB, Texas Instruments and General Electric were all well on their way. If no one had experience then you were not looking very hard.
Message: 480
Posted by: David Silverstein
Posted on: Monday, 16th April 2007
A few things. First and foremost, back in 1997 or thereabouts, not even Motorola had Master Black Belts. If you refer to the history of six sigma at Motorola in Quality Progress a month or two ago, Motorola itself tells us that. And Motorola never implemented six sigma like other companies, nor did TI. Allied Signal and GE were really the first, and even in 1997 GE was still dealing with tremendous challenges. More importantly, I have found that “experience” is not the key and in fact experience with one deployment can be a weakness. Too many people bring their experience with them and assume their new employer should do things just like the last, which is rarely the case. So in the end, the experience to draw upon wasn't there, nor did we care.
Message: 509
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Monday, 30th April 2007
We seem to be dodging the question by moving to a discussion of Master Black Belts. By 1997 Motorola had been involved in their Six Sigma efforts for over 10 years. That is where we found the consultants to deliver Allied Signal and GE. If we look at who is benchmarking what deployments we see Allied Signal and GE benchmarked much more frequently than Seagate so there must have been some qualified resources out there.
Allied Signal began training their Master Black Belts in 1996. That means there were some available by the time Seagate deployed. Mike Harry created his 2 week Master Black Belts after being acosted by Jack Welch in the pit to break his own paradigms. That was 1996 as well.
So as you say Back in the Day is an effort to paint yourself as a pioneer. There was plenty of resources available and plenty of experience.
So if experience is a weakness have your consultants only worked one deployment or do you discount their fees after the first deployment? They are by your own words an inferior consultant since they now have experience.
In the end the experience was there. You chose not to draw on it because as you said you did not care.
Anonymous
Message: 534
Posted by: Kelly
Posted on: Monday, 7th May 2007
This posting http://www.leadershipandbusiness.com/2007/05/the_chief_innov.html and the course you're teaching seems to contradict what you wrote here.
Can you please explain why the course description describes teaching tools, but your other post seems to not be in favor of CIOs learning specific tools? Are you just excluding TRIZ in favor of other tools?
Just curious.
Message: 540
Posted by: Bob
Posted on: Tuesday, 8th May 2007
I've wondered about this for some time. The key to innovation isn't about the tools or the process, but about balance. My research shows that innovation is successful when there is a balanced approach between the intellectual, organizational and human elements. When there is im-balance we tend to fail. This is true whether we assess business models, strategies, new business pursuits and even career opportunities. The human element is the 'Why' we do it, the intellectual element is the “What” we do and the organizational element is the “How” we do it. All three elements validate each other. If one element is lacking, our innovations tend to fail. This hypothesis is backed by many real examples across many industries.
Message: 549
Posted by: Terry
Posted on: Thursday, 10th May 2007
Bob,
Referring to your statement, “My research shows that innovation is successful when . . .” presupposes a working definition of innovation. In you research, what did you consider to constitute an innovation?
Terry
Message: 551
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Sunday, 13th May 2007
Bob,
Similar to Terry's question and it would be interesting to see your research if possible (I am sure RealInnovation would love to get something like that to publish if possible).
You use the words “tends to fail” throughout your post. What does that mean?
You speak about balance and an im-balance cause things to tend to fail. How are you measuring balance and consequently im-balance?
In the next to last sentence you make the comment that the three elements validate each other. What does that mean?
I can agree to some level that it isn't about tools considering Edison's success. He probably had less tools and more success than the majority of innovation efforts today. What I read doesn't show a huge concern for the human element. It would be interesting to see the support for all of this.
Regards
Message: 553
Posted by: David Silverstein
Posted on: Monday, 14th May 2007
I am all in favor of teaching individuals at all levels the tools they need to do their job. For a Chief Innovation Officer, things like the tools of change leadership are every bit as important as the tools of innovation. It was interesting in the class we ran to see that the participants, many of them senior executives, had much more interst in tools than I think is typical. Perhaps that's because everyone enjoys exercising their creative juices. Specifically, when it comes to TRIZ, there are many tools. TRIZ is a tool box unto itself. It is not A tool. And I am a big beliver that TRIZ has a great deal to offer, but even I am guilty of over playing TRIZ a bit, as I did in my book. I have come to find over the years that TRIZ is about as significant to innovation as SPC or DOE might be to Six Sigma. But TRIZ is not the entire answer to innovation itself, and in a two-day course, a few hours of which was dedicated to tools, there's only so much we can do with TRIZ other than to introduce it's existance and applicability.
Message: 555
Posted by: Richard Platt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15th May 2007
David, et al,As someone who has performed the role to a greater degree in a corporate environment, but w/out the Cxx title, perhaps I can share my viewpoint to shed more light on this topic. Please forgive the length and some parts of what I mention here are personal in its tone but hopefully this will add deeper context to the discussion on such a broad topic.
I do agree for the most part with what David is saying and from another perspective, I must also agree with the “experience” statements as well, I believe that both perspectives well serve the aspect of effectiveness. As the former Intel Senior Instructor for Innovation Methods [primarily TRIZ but not exclusively] & as a Corporate Innovation Program Manager that there was a great deal for me to learn beyond (TRIZ) tools and it was the 'change agent' skill set that I was finally able to comprehend through understanding and experience (see failures) before I could improve upon those influence gaps that I had before I could see the program achieve the success that I always saw as possible.I had a quite a few well meaning folks try and tell me to focus on strengths, as some popular books out there suggest, but they missed the point, and my own effectiveness was impacted. (They were all well meaning so it is no fault of theirs. In my opinion we ourselves are responsible for our own education and effectiveness and no book or class can take you to the end of that path in life). My background (engineering, manufacturing, product and process development, continuous improvement methods, corporate strategy, R&D and Technology Development) were critical in seeing where we needed to apply the methods and tools and get the big results and have adoption eventually become a reality. While some may disagree, in my opinion the bigger gaps that I had in influence eventually caught up by the end of my tenure, interdependently, I believe that being able to see, understand and traverse the political landscape was actually more important for me to learn both personally and professionally. * I do not believe that this can be learned in a book or a class, but only through a thorough understanding of what it means to be a Ã’change agentÓ and then applying that knowledge in different contexts (experience), which hopefully culminates in wisdom. The wisdom I speak of here is in Ôwhat to do’, Ôwhen to do it’, Ôwhere to do itÔ, Ôhow to do it’ and Ôwho to do it with’. The Ôwhy you do it’, I believe you’d better know before you even begin down this path. And yes definitely as one moves to another employer the landscape changes again, so I totally agree that what worked before may not translate effectively in a new organization, but the basic concepts and the maturity gained from the initial effort carry forward into the next effort.I understand Praveen’s perspective; however my own experience leads me to see it slightly differently. The CIO (Chief Information Officer in this case), and having worked directly and indirectly for 2 of Intel’s CIO’s, depends on the CIO and how they see their job responsibilities are. It is important to consider this broadly as this also includes the priorities of the organization in a given timeframe and what CIO’s are told to do and are measured on, not just if they have knowledge in HR, IT and Technology. In fact both CIO’s that I knew had the requisite HR, IT and Technology backgrounds; however they derived different conclusions on where the organizations resources should be best applied. The 1st one that I worked for was Doug Busch, and he really took to his part seriously on enabling innovation across the enterprise, he and his lieutenants really enabled me to be more effective and were also good coaches/mentors when maneuvering through the corporate gauntlet when things got sticky or even when my own perspective lacked elevation. It was Doug’s viewpoint of himself in that role that got him to invest Intel’s $ and resources in the Intel TRIZ program in the beginning and support it through its incubation phase. However his successor was under extreme pressure to cut costs last year, and anything that wasn’t directly enabling IT’s programs, (my program was chartered to enable innovation in the manufacturing and design groups), was considered extraneous and was a target for being cut. Eventually the word came down and the IT team transitioned the program to the most effective group of users. The program was considered to be extremely successful in its adopted environments, so there is no issue from my perspective, what I faced were simply the realities of the marketplace and change in the corporate environment. * What might be worth mentioning here is whether or not IT and its CIO should actually be the responsible organization for enabling innovation across the enterprise to begin with, particularly when economic cycles hit a trough? I see a lot of consultants and trade journals say that CIO’s and in some cases CEO’s should be driving and enabling innovation, and I believe they definitely should have a deep hand in the effort, however I’m not sure that they should own implementing it. They should definitely enable and measure the effort, (we’ve all heard the stories about failed TRIZ & 6 sigma efforts w/out the CEO’s active involvement), but with everyth