Why do companies such as Lenovo innovation fatigue? Failed to get rid of the 15 pit-Lenovo, innovation-IT information
Transformational innovation, are supposed to be when the road gets rough (adversity) happened.
2 quarters of this year, some large company has encountered business difficulties. Such as Lenovo Group released on May 26, 2015 years earnings, based on earnings, Lenovo annual revenue of 44.9 billion dollars, down 3%; a net loss of $ 128 million in 2014 and $ 829 million in net profit. Why large organizations, such as Lenovo, suffer a lack of innovation which leads to performance difficulties?
We will find those who make it difficult for innovation implementation in complex organizations stresses and factors. Through our own experience and observations in other places, we have identified 15 factors impeding innovation. In fact, it's more like a list rather than a full curriculum, and you may have experienced a lot.
(1) the ambiguous problems, unclear or inconsistent prospect (strategy).
How do you define success? Refer to our favorite Yogi Berra (Yogi Berra), should be able to resonate: "If you don't know where you're going, you won't get there. "What is your future? How to define your success? There is an achievable goal (plans and projects) is a good thing, but if they cannot point to a change or at least a quick development, even if you can bring some innovation to the market, your organization will eventually fall behind.
(2) the excessive focus on our core products.
We often see: organizational concentration than they already do, and excessive focus on physical products. They don't see a wide range of innovation, and this kind of innovation is very likely are everywhere: from customer service to the supply chain, to the problems within the Organization, you can provide better value and a better experience. Remember, the product is only part of all you have to do.
(3) the organization does not "know" the customer.
We often see this phenomenon! You may think that you know your customers, you can spend a lot of time to think about your customers-but do you really know them? Common problems are these:
Leave it to someone else. Are you do research, spending time together with our customers in person, please? Or you outsource to an external agency? Apple notoriously did not spend a dime to an external organization for Apple's user research, in addition to designing your own retail store.
Do not see the client's intentions or the needs of their potential or acquiesce in, just to see what they require. Listen to what they say is not enough to review patient satisfaction survey is not enough. You must be deeper and more comprehensive understanding of customer needs.
Succumb to groupthink. Your team members, especially those who work on the staff when they see when the customer response to your products or services, your employees are free to express their ideas and opinions, please? Or, your organization on the dynamics and hierarchies suppress the client's opinion? Be careful, if you're one of the team members have the same background, the same responsibilities, so they how to read customer feedback on the issue will have the same bias.
(4) there is a risk-averse culture.
Does your organization encourage (or inhibit) prudent risk? If people will think differently, or failure to blame? Does the incentive system will encourage, or at least to accept defeat? Many organizations are proud to announce their "embracing failure" that they would like to "fail fast". However, few organizations, if any, really putting it into action. In your organization, when the performance appraisal or a Board meeting, failed to really be sure?
The ubiquitous "tissue antibodies" how strong is it? If certain people or groups can more easily find the failures of others, or resistance to change, rather than contribute to change? As a leader in the Organization as a whole, whether it should be taken with a critical mind to look at all?
(5) the myopic eyes of leaders routinely dominates the daily work.
Organizational culture or a leader are more obsessed with short-term gains and goals to meet, and unable to see or take action to deal with the big picture? This can be seen in the following four aspects.
Not enough time and resources to focus on innovation.
Intolerable nuisance activities or anything that's not exactly the same plan.
Transformational innovation is not a leader of the mission.
Transformational innovation is not part of the scorecard.
(6) the organization is trying to maintain the status quo, and it resists any change and disruptive innovations, even if comprehensive studies have supported this "there is no doubt that change will happen."
This difficulty is normally the last two combinations:
① organizations are too risk-averse, concerned about the short-term effects;
② individuals looking for short term significant returns on the team, because they have to do to survive.
Here, after the success of the ego mind is also a factor, that is, organizations have their own at the top of their game (for example, Kodak, and blockbuster's DVD rental companies), why change it?
(7) the Organization has no innovation centers or innovation is not embedded in the main internal.
I have many times, innovation team and the laboratory is placed on one side, in separate facilities were closed, and main business of step. They do not involve contact with the delivery of the products or the customer's personal and business units.
(8) for innovative actions do not have good internal communication.
As they say, if you blink in the darkness, no one will know you blink your eyes. Employees at all levels and leaders keep in step with change? Vision, innovation, quality and continuous innovation spirit, has to be front and Center throughout the organization.
(9) the organization focused on the process, rather than results.
This is the bane of large complex organizations (because it is one), innovative entity to create more curse. First, they must follow a process or method, whatever it is. The process becomes an end in itself. So, the process became more important than the result. Ask yourself: the processes serving innovation (good)? There is innovation in processes, and make innovations in a business plan, often becomes a pure project in the list (not so good)?
(10) Organization pyramids appear upside down.
If innovation is promoted by the Organization's leadership, that a very important part of it will be left behind, it is a normal part of the customer experience. Organization leaders usually do not have daily contact with customers. The result is: innovation focus within the Organization and benefit only the Organization, but might adversely affect the customer experience. When it comes to innovation, people who work on the front lines should be at the top of the organizational pyramid.
(11) the innovation team is you have enough diversity?
Do you have a creative team, but all the staff are engineers. They know all about you on the technical product information. But this does not give you the team brought new insight, a global perspective, the real world of "gestalt", as well as the ability to solve problems, for example, a fashion designer or architect (our Organization has both types of talent). We will be described in the next chapter.
(12) on important industry trends within your organization does not know.
Similarly, you and your team from your own people, your own sales force, or from their own designers to understand and figure out the development trends of the industry. However, how they are "tips" in this industry and development trend in the world of it? Ensure that your team officially "into" current trends in the assigned some "trend-watcher". In the 6th chapter will have more discussions.
(13) the innovation exists only in two-dimensional design and file, without the support of working prototypes and instances.
Many of the designers are on paper or on a computer screen doing research and science, as a result, they miss the subtle differences, and if you have a working prototype, the user experience will come earlier. Whether designing a product or a process, before officially out in a design, the design team should be "real", practical way to simulate this design.
(14) investment and innovation resources available only under favorable conditions and not under stress are also available.
Especially in the pursuit of profit in the world, we find that innovative research was only in good times financed or to be financed, whether inside or outside the organization when things (or the environment) go wrong, it was one of the first to be axed. This is called the upside down: greatest innovation, especially transformative innovation, are supposed to be when the road gets rough (adversity) happened.
(15) cooperation too little or too much.
Cooperation too little "problem" is very simple, is that many people will feel ignored, especially those who work in the first, and most of them will think there is no way to share their experiences and insights. However, a number of organizations such as the Mayo Clinic we are established on the basis of cooperation, sometimes there are too many of our partners! The Mayo Clinic has been described as "by the year 2 000 organization of Vice", which means that there are too many people involved in everything that the Mayo Clinic daily, and of course cooperation too much could make the organization remain flat. Therefore, our secret is to build relationships with the appropriate amount of tissue, to connect it to your organization, and based on this communication accordingly.
This list is a tool for self-assessment. If you work in a complex organization, there is no doubt that you have faced and would overcome these obstacles. We did it, we were described by most of the rest of the book is how to overcome these obstacles. Innovation means in a complex organization, first you need to understand your organization's background and the correct way of setting or creative energy will be absorbed by internal friction and radical change. Your first task is to identify these frictions, and advancing a culture and process.
联想等公司为何创新乏力？是没跳出这15个坑 - 联想,创新 - IT资讯
变革性的创新，都应该是当路面变得粗糙时（逆境的时候）发生的。
今年2季度，一些大型的公司先后遭遇业务的困境。比如联想集团于5月26日发布了2015年财报，根据财报显示，联想集团全年收入为449亿美元，同比减少3%；净亏损为1.28亿美元，而2014年净利润为8.29亿美元。为什么像联想集团这样的大型组织，会遭遇创新不足从而导致的业绩困境？
我们会刻意地找那些使创新很难在复杂的组织中实施的压力和因素。通过我们自己的经验和在其他地方的观察，我们已经确定了15个阻碍我们创新的因素。其实，这更像一个清单而不是一个完整的课程，而你自己可能已经经历了很多。
（1）不明确的问题，不清楚或不一致的前景（战略）。
如何定义成功？引用一下我们最喜欢的约吉·贝拉（Yogi Berra）的话，应该能引起共鸣：“如果你不知道你要去哪里，你便不会到达那里。”什么是你的未来？如何定义你的成功？有一个可实现的目标（计划和项目成果）是件好事，但如果它们不能指向一个变革或至少一个快速发展，即使你能给市场带来一些创新，你的组织最终还是会落后的。
（2）组织过度专注自己的核心或产品。
我们经常能看到：组织过度集中于它们已经在做的，而且过度集中于实物产品上。它们看不到更大范围内的创新前沿，而这种创新极有可能无处不在：从客户服务到供应链，再到组织内部的问题，都可以提供更高的价值和更好的体验。请记住，产品只是你要做的一部分。
（3）组织不能“了解”客户。
我们经常能看到这个现象！你可以认为你是了解你的客户的，你可以花很多时间来考虑你的客户——但是，你们真的了解他们了吗？常见的弊病是这些：
把它留给别人。是你亲手做的研究，亲自花时间与客户在一起吗？或者你外包给外部的机构？苹果出了名的没有花一毛钱给外部组织用于苹果的用户研究上，除了设计自己的零售商店。
没有看到客户的意图或他们潜在的或默许的需求，只看到他们所要求的。听他们说什么是不够的，回顾患者满意度调查是不够的。你必须更深刻、更全面地了解客户的需求。
屈服于群体思维。你的团队成员，特别是那些在工作岗位上的员工，当他们看到客户对你们的产品或服务的反应时，你的员工可以自由地表达自己的想法和意见吗？或者，你的组织在动力学和层次结构上压制客户的见解吗？要小心，如果你所在的团队成员有相同的背景、相同的职责，那么，他们在如何解读客户的反馈的问题上就会有相同的偏见。
（4）有一个规避风险的文化。
你的组织是否鼓励（或是抑制）谨慎应对风险？人们是否会因为不同的思考或失败而受到责备？请问奖励制度是否会鼓励或至少接受失败？许多组织现在自豪地宣布它们“拥抱失败”，它们希望“快速失败”。然而，很少有组织，如果有的话，真正地把它付诸行动。在你的组织中，当业绩评估考核或开董事会会议时，失败是否真的能被肯定？
无所不在的“组织抗体”有多强？是否某些人或群体可以更容易地找到别人的失败或抵制变革，而不是出力去改变？作为整个组织的领导者，是否应采取一种带着挑剔的心态去看待一切？
（5）组织领导者的短浅目光常规性地支配着日常工作。
组织文化或领导者是否更醉心于对短期收获和目标的满足，而无法看清楚或采取行动去面对大图景？这可以体现在以下四个方面。
没有足够的时间、资源以专注于创新。
不能容忍讨厌鬼活动或任何不完全一致的计划。
变革性创新不是领导人的使命。
变革性创新不是组织记分卡的一部分。
（6）组织正在努力维持现状，并且它抗拒任何变革和颠覆性创新，即使完善的研究已经支持这个“毫无疑问要发生的变革”。
这个困难通常是最后这两个的组合：
①组织过于回避风险，关注短期效应；
②团队中的个人寻找短期明显的回报，因为他们必须这样做才能生存。
在这里，成功后的自负心态也是一个因素，那就是组织认为它们自己已经在其游戏的顶部了（例如，柯达和影碟出租公司百视达所发生的事情），何必去改变什么呢？
（7）组织没有以创新为中心，或没有将创新嵌入主要的组织内部。
有很多次，创新团队和实验室的被放置在一边，被关闭在单独的设施中，与主要业务步调不一致。它们没有涉及与交付产品或接触客户的个人和业务单位。
（8）对于创新的行动，没有良好的内部沟通。
正如他们所说，如果你在黑暗中眨眼，没有人会知道你眨了眼睛。是否各个级别的员工和领导者都与变革保持了步调一致？展望、创新、创新的素养和不断创新的精神，都必须在整个组织的前沿和中心。
（9）组织把重点放在过程上，而不是放在结果上。
这是大型复杂组织的祸根（反正是其中之一），很多时候是其中创新型实体的祸根。他们首先必须遵循某个流程或方法，不管它是什么。这个流程其本身就成了一个目的。所以，流程变得比结果更重要。问问你自己：这个流程是否服务于创新（好的方面）？还是创新服务于流程，并使创新在一个商业计划中，往往成为清单中的一个纯粹的项目（不太好）？
（10）组织的金字塔出现倒挂状态。
如果创新只是由该组织的领导来推动，那一个非常重要的部分就会被遗落，它就是日常的客户体验。组织的领导者通常不与客户有日常联系。其结果是：创新可以专注于组织内部并只有利于组织，但可能不利于客户体验。当谈到创新，工作在第一线的人们才应该在组织金字塔的顶部。
（11）你所拥有的创新团队是不是不够多样化？
你有一个创新的团队，但所有的人员都是工程师。他们在技术上知道所有关于你的产品的信息。但这不能给你的团队带来的新的洞察力、全球性视野、现实世界中的“格式塔”，以及解决问题的能力，例如，一位时装设计师或建筑师（这两类人才我们的组织都有）。我们将在下一章中介绍。
（12）你的组织对重要的行业发展趋势没有了解。
同样地，你和团队可以从自己的人、自己的销售队伍，或者从自己的设计师那儿了解和弄清行业的发展趋势。但是，他们是如何“提示”你在这个行业和世界里的发展趋势的呢？确保正式地把你的团队“融入”当前的趋势里，指派一些“潮流观察家”。在第6章将有更多的有关讨论。
（13）创新只存在于二维的设计和文件中，没有工作原型和实例的支持。
很多设计师都是在纸上或电脑屏幕上做研究和科学，其结果是，他们会错过细微的差别，而如果有一个工作原型，那用户体验就会来得早些。无论是设计一件产品或一个流程，在一个设计方案正式出来之前，设计团队应该用“真实”的实践方式来模拟一下这个设计。
（14）创新投资和资源只在顺境下才可用，而不是逆境下也可用。
尤其是在追求盈利的世界里，我们发现，创新研究只有在好的时候才被资助或才能得到资助，而无论在组织内部或外部，当事情（或环境）变坏时，它都是被削减的首要事项之一。这就是所谓的本末倒置：最伟大的创新努力，尤其是变革性的创新，都应该是当路面变得粗糙时（逆境的时候）发生的。
（15）合作太少或过多。
合作太少的“问题”很简单，那就是很多人会觉得被忽略，尤其是那些在一线工作的人，他们中的大多数，都会觉得没有办法分享自己的经验和见解。然而，一些组织像我们梅奥诊所这样也是建立在合作的基础之上的，有时我们有太多的合作者！梅奥诊所曾经被描述为“由2 000个副总裁组成的组织”，这意味着有太多的人员参与了梅奥诊所日常的每一件事情，当然合作太多也有可能使组织停滞不前。所以，我们的秘诀是要与适合数量的组织建立关系，将其连接到自己的组织中，并以此为依据相应地进行沟通。
这个清单是进行自我评估的工具。如果你在一个复杂的组织工作，毫无疑问，你已经遇到并将要克服这些障碍。我们做到了，这本书的其余大部分都在描述我们是如何克服这些障碍的。在复杂的组织中进行创新意味着，首先你要了解组织的背景和正确的设定方式，否则创新的活力会被组织内部的摩擦吸收和彻底改变。而你的第一个任务就是要识别这些摩擦，然后把一个文化和过程向前推进。