Kindled Meme

– exploring the purpose of connection

Leave a comment

Innovation jibber-jabber – is it useful?

Ive been wrapping up my dissertation this week and been reflecting on the use of language –  and especially academic language in the innovation field.

There’s lots of research out there on innovation but is tucked away inside EBSCO and ProQuest and not everyone can get access to it, and when they do get access to it it’s written in a way that many people in business would find incomprehensible – full of jargon.

A classic one in the world of innovation is the term ‘absorptive capacity’ – what on earth does this mean?

It’s all about when you work with other people, how you absorb their knowledge, see the significance in what you find and then transform it into some kind of meaning that you can take back into your own firm and see it used. Seeing it ‘used’ means seeing it applied to build some kind of value – a commercial offering. People get romantic about innovation but it’s only innovation if it’s got use and has a commercial or societal outcome.

But in a world thats becoming collaborative, it’s not just about sucking in other people’s knowledge but also sharing your own knowledge, and so the academics come up with another term  -‘desorptive capacity’ – the skill of communicating what you have so others can take it on board. It all makes good sense but the terms in themselves are obscure.

Easterby-Smith puts this in a much clearer way he says: “Good teachers make good learners, and good learners make good teachers”

People who can communicate a message, build a connection, amplify ideas and initiate some action. And it’s the action that is really important in absorptive capacity – compelling people to crack on and get things done and make things happen.

I had a conversation at Henley recently and heard about a guy from McKinsey who had recently started at Apple. The guy was a high performer and in McKinsey had been “The Man”. But when he initiated his first project at Apple, pulling together various experts from around the business, he became aware he was sat in a room with people who really didn’t need him – who were more than competent, understanding the significance and more than willing to crack on and get things done. He was asking “what am I doing here these guys are way more capable than I am?”

He ran his first meeting and people understood what was needed of them and what the vision was the project – even as he packed up his notes from the session he started seeing e-mails flying around as people left the room, picked up their actions and started to make things happen. This is a bit of absorptive capacity which is really key – when people really know how to get their shit together.

It’s not the process, it is not in a procedure, it’s in the culture – its in ‘the way things are done around here’. Apple might be a big company but from this guys experience it hasn’t forgotten what was that made it great in the early years. From my own research I can see there are many small companies in the UK which are just as focused and practical – with the need for speed and action coded into their DNA.

But does the term ‘absorptive capacity’ really help people in the real world understand what it is that researchers are finding inside these great companies?

It’s been great having the ‘obligation’ to be a researcher for a few months –  jabbering away about tacit and codified knowledge and social ties and relational capital – but now I have got to transform that learning in a way that means something to other people – through a language that’s accessible. This stuff is great but its only useful if it gets used.

You know what I mean?



Varsity Line: When worlds collide..sparks fly

On Friday I had a meeting down at Harwell Research Park south of Oxford which exists mostly to support the UK physics research community.

It’s the 3rd time I’ve been there in a couple weeks for various reasons, but on Friday I went to meet with Ian Tracey who works for the STFC Research Council. Ian is the guy involved with much of the knowledge networks run on campus and is developing the entrepreneurial community that helps spin out the value created in that research.

I wanted to speak within Ian on the back of the Will Hutton keynote speech at the recent Venturefest conference at Oxford. At the end of Wills speech, which was often humorous and provocative; Will lay down the challenge asking the question “How can Oxford become an Open Innovation ecosystem”.

“So what are you going to do, Oxford, to be a centre of Open Innovation and drive economic growth of the region and the UK?”

I’m a big fan of Will Hutton – in fact my thesis for my MBA is framed by the compelling message that he threw out at Innovate11 in London last year, where he spoke about the need to drive growth in the UK. Will and the Big Innovation Centre are active promoters of Open Innovation – building collaboration between firms, communities and universities to drive new business.

Ian and I spoke about how there seemed to be a difference between Oxford and Cambridge. We both shared a perception that Cambridge have got it right. They are so much more connected. But maybe the grass is always greener on the other side…

We talked about the Cabume website and how it shares all the news about what’s going on in the Cambridge technology sector  – about who is raising funding and on what the top talent is doing in the city of Cambridge. Anyone who follows the news on Cabume can clearly see what’s going on in the city – who are the movers and shakers and where the energy is being created.

In Oxford on the other hand we don’t have that central news service and I updated Ian on how I have been speaking with Cabume on what it would take to get them to come to Oxford and to replicate their service for our city.

Ian had given the “Oxford versus Cambridge” dilemma considerable thought. It seems to be that Cambridge is far more geographically isolated than Oxford. Where as Oxford is surrounded by other industrial centres such as Swindon, Reading and Milton Keynes – and how we sit above the whole of the M4 corridor – Cambridge by contrast is quite remote. Maybe this was the reason that Cambridge has a strong nucleus and focus and a strong sense of collective identity. Maybe it was the case that people in Oxford – when it was time for a change – could easily explore other options and work in other locations without uprooting the family and a whole lifestyle. As a result maybe talent in Oxford is more diffused and as a result it doesn’t have a single centralised and persistent knowledge community.

We chatted about clusters. There’s lots of academic research about clusters but people aren’t really sure whether innovation happens because of clusters or whether clusters form around where innovation happens. Certainly Tech City in London is getting a lot of press. Shoreditch oddly has been vibrant for many years – a rundown part of town, which even 10 years ago was the home to some of the most vibrant nightclubs, pubs and arts scene; and now the digital creatives have moved in and things are happening.

Gilbert and George: Shoreditch gentlemen

And from watching the news that Cabume shares I can see Cambridge is also buzzing.

Ian reflected upon how the railway link between Manchester and Leeds stimulates innovation between those two areas. If you have to drive the car over the top of the M62 – over the bleak moors – it can be a real drag. But having a train line from central Manchester Piccadilly straight into the heart of Leeds has built a connection that stimulates the flow of ideas and business connections.

If you reduce distance between two centres of innovation, promote proximity and enable face-to-face meetings then things start to move and happen.

It was interesting talking to Ian and  I got to hear about his Knowledge-Broking events he puts on – bringing in people from business and research to give six and three-minute pitches about what they’re up to and what they need. The brokering events are a great example of promoting collaboration between firms and research.

Maybe we should tell Will Hutton that Oxford already is an Open Innovation Hub and that through these initiatives innovation is being stimulated. Or maybe there’s more that we can do in Oxford. Its working well in Harwell but maybe they should be co-hosted between Harwell, Begbroke and the University locations in the city? After all the first stage of any sense of cooperation is to build a platform of inclusion.

I liked the story about the way Manchester and Leeds are connected via the rail link and on Saturday when I was scanning the news I saw mention of the Varsity line and how this might be reopened. This is a line that used to connect Oxford with Cambridge and like many other lines in the UK got closed down in the 60s as part of the Beeching review.

Varsity Line sitting and waiting…

If you want to get from Oxford to Cambridge today you can take the train – chugging along into Paddington, working up a sweat on the tube, crossing to King’s Cross – surely the most grimy and Dickensian part of capital – before grabbing another train and heading back north into Cambridge. It’s really not the most appealing of journeys and a long day out.

If you want to go by car this is also a real slog – hacking around Bicester, putting up with the frustrations crossing country past Buckingham and then getting dizzy around the endless roundabouts in Milton Keynes.

The two cities really are currently inconveniently far apart given the influence they have on research and knowledge in the UK. If the Varsity line reopens it appears to be a connection from Reading through Oxford via Milton Keynes and onto Cambridge. This connects 3 of the biggest knowledge cities in the UK outside of London.

It’s a fascinating proposition as it would really help build connections between two significant worlds and it would help lots of people to connect and form linkages. Great ideas get written down in papers that people publish and share, and through the Internet we get to watch conferences on video – but often the subtlety and authenticity of the persons message comes over far better in person – spreading the energy and sense of engagement.

It started me thinking about all the people I might get a chance to meet if I was able to go to Cambridge so much more easily. I see so many interesting events going on it would be fascinating proposition and it’s interesting that an old Victorian technology like the railway lines seems to be such an enabler of knowledge transfer and human connection. After all we’re getting excited about the digital age – these technologies should remove all barriers.

However we know meeting people in real life has got huge value.

If you could have an evening in Cambridge who would you go and meet? Whose work have you been following that you’d like to bump into casually at an event or in a bar in the city?


Bedknobs and Brooms sticks? No Wizards, Stools and Pirates…

The Wizards Stool.

I’m in the middle of doing a series of research interviews at the moment -looking into how SMEs perform open innovation – how they partner with other firms to come up with new solutions that will drive the business forward.

The interviews typically take 45 min but every now and again I get a chance to speak to somebody really amazing who comes up with so many insights that the conversation moves on to be closer to an hour and a half. This is no problem to me – I’m really grateful when people are prepared to give up their time and share their insights. As well as answering my research questions I glean so much wisdom from these people. In Oxfordshire there really are some incredible companies who are doing some great innovation.

A couple weeks ago I got to meet with one such guy who’s been involved with the R&D function of local firm for just over 30 years. As you can imagine, during that time he has built up lots of experience and insights – he’s a real Innovation Wizard. During the interview he told many anecdotes all helping frame the challenges of being innovative in small companies – the art of storytelling is strong with him.

One of the gems he shared with me was how he viewed innovation as a 3 legged stool.

The Wizards Stool

One of the legs he views as the scientific basis of his firm. The roots of this company are in applying chemical processes – mostly in printing. The company has been going for over 150 years and has a strong culture of scientific discovery within the organisation that has driven the innovation that constantly reinvents that firms model.

The second leg of the stool he views as the process and how to they take that core intellectual property to be used and scaled for a commercial offering. And the 3rd leg of the stool he views as the market offering – the deep customer insights that we tap into when we position our solution on the market.

The trick with the stool analogy is in the choices for how you move each of these legs whilst you’re innovating.

This all placed a mental picture in my mind of my 5-year-old son sitting on that stool and how he drives us nuts by swinging back on the legs – rocking back and to. We know one of these day he will “come a cropper’ – but at the same time the image helped me understand what this Wizard was telling me. Its about risk and organisational stability.

Through his eyes he sees that you should only move one or two legs of that stool at any one time. If you move just one leg – innovation changes either the science, the process or the addressable market that you are intending to serve.

If you are comfortable with a little less stability, you can move two legs of the stool at one time – maybe you take a new process that can take you into a new market. Maybe you take on board some new IP and at the same time enter into a nascent market. But the deal is you can’t move all 3 legs at any one time.

It’s a good analogy because we’ve got enough common sense to know you can’t make a stool levitate – we know that we need a least some stability and some point of permanence else you struggle to keep your orientation and to justify how we are still strategically aligned with what the organisation can do today (skills, linkages, reputation and brands).

Pirates and Innovation

Near the start of the year Frank and the guys in Oxford Business First – the networking group – put on a series of events called ‘Practical innovation’.

The idea was to connect a group of people in local business community to think about being innovative and drive growth. On the first event Stuart Miller from Bybox gave his energetic talk about how innovation is at the core of his own company.

Stuart tells a great story and at the heart of it is a discussion on how at Bybox they recruit ‘Pirates’ -people who challenge the status quo and are comfortable exploring new options – stepping outside of existing structures and driving the company forward. Stuart makes people laugh when he tells them how he has the Jolly Roger flag flying outside the front of their offices in Wantage. It’s a great story very engaging and his metaphor is backed up by a recent article capturing Steve jobs walking along the same lines:

“if you’re bright, but you prefer the size and structure and traditions of the navy, go join IBM. If you’re bright and think different and are willing to go for it as part of a special, unified, and unconventional team, become a pirate.”


On the first Practical Innovation event Stuart was accompanied by one of his colleagues Indy, when the room asked how is it working in such a tense and highly provocative environment Indy did let slip that sometimes too many pirates can be too much and that you do need some sensibility and calm and a degree of consensus at the midst of all this exploration.

This kind of tension keeps organisations moving and keep the thinking innovative was called Creative Abrasion by Dorothy Leonard-Barton, in an article she wrote back in 1996.’ – and whilst it can be gritty to start with the resulting creativity and innovation justifies any pains.So whilst it great to have pirates on board – it’s fun and explosive – there’s also a degree of discomfort in change and moving forwards and exploring unknown territory.

I think everybody in the room really enjoyed Stuart’s story its great if you frame a journey as an adventure – but one guy in the room that evening asked the question:

“When does innovation go a step too far?”

This is a really good question and I certainly didn’t have a clear answer for this at the time. People talked about it but I don’t think there’s any simple answer.

If you’re working in a large firm maybe it’s just takes a while to get things moving. You could be an ‘Oil Tanker’ and pretty sluggish, and from the inside you know that it’s not worth pushing too much – if there are too many waves of innovation one after the other maybe none of them will stick. Maybe you’ve got to pick fights – after all innovation isn’t just about technology or ideas or new markets it’s actually about embedding change inside the organisation. Change can be hard and so maybe it’s reasonable that innovation can go too far if it is too disorienting in some organisational cultures.

In high-growth SMEs innovation is a very different kettle of fish. Firms are known to be flexible and agile – directly promoting this as their key strength. One of the people I’ve interviewed recently made a big point of this and he emphasises with his team that, whilst they have a clear strategy and a clear purpose and they never take their eye off the customer’s requirements; they can also turn on a dime and they are permitted to explore new avenues. After all why be an SME if you can’t be flexible and aggressive.

But again in this environment innovation could go to far. Too much ambition and to much drive can lead to burnout. It’s definitely the case that people in small businesses have a different ‘gene pool’ to those people that fit comfortably in larger firms – but everybody at some point will get low on energy and feel disoriented from an innovation too far

An Innovation Too Far?

When I heard about the stool story from my Innovation Wizard in Oxfordshire I got thinking how it offered 3 dimensions that might help us view when innovation is too far. Clearly the Wizard didn’t want to move all 3 legs. Change in any of these ‘legs’ brings a degree of risk that needs to be assessed – trying to get all 3 to move at the same time is just one innovation step too far.

I also think the analogy of the stool can be stretched one step further. May be the height of the stool correlates of just how ambitious you’re being. Is the stool too high for people to get on? Have you reached too high and can people still believe in what you’re trying to achieve?

Also stools can be pretty uncomfortable things. You need to take people with you on an innovation journey.Is the change too much? Do you still have the backing of everybody in the company? Are other stakeholders still on board your stool?

Either way – I like the stool – a clear mental picture in our minds and it helps us do some quick sense-making of what is planned and how it fits in with our strategic assets and resources inside the company.

What do you think? Can you make stools levitate? Have you got a neat trick that allows you to climb greater heights? And what’s the secret to making a stool comfortable enough that everybody wants to get on board – and not just smile when you inspire them – but makes them cling on during the full journey of change?

Whats your favourite Innovation and Change metaphor?

Leave a comment

Artists, thieves and meaning

Picasso: “All Art is theft”.

Nothing is truly original –  great innovation comes from combining existing knowledge in new and original ways. Connecting old dots in a new style.

My friend Jack disagrees – to him inspiration is beamed down from above – but lets park that idea – lets settle for theft…or at least ‘derivative’.

Now Seth Godin is telling us that all entrepreneurs are artists. But are they then thieves – looking for new gaps and opportunities – picking up the best ideas…interesting… Thieves or maybe just magpies?


It sounds good recombining other peoples ‘golden nuggets’. But it’s got to have a point – a need that’s met and you have to do it with  passion and focus on those customers that need you.

So if you do need to be a thief I’m thinking you’ve really got to put your heart into it and have your ears wide open – to listen and recombine the known, to address the unknown. A scanner, a hunter, a poacher – all with conviction watching the shifts all around us. Our values and expectations of products and services change over time – so I’m also thinking we need new value and meaning too.

Its not just about ‘fit’. There is something more going on right now.

A while back someone planted in my head that the value we create is not in the product or the service we deliver – but in its value-in-use by our customers. Its not in the price but the benefits they find.

Does what we have – or do – make sense and have a meaning and value to the people we serve? Forget shareholder value for a minute – does this stuff matter to our customers?

Im thinking it is only ever art if it “really matters?