Innovation: Focus on Execution

Kim Kishbaugh (@kkish) tweeted a Harvard Business Review blog posting by Kevin Evers about innovation.  Thanks Kim, because it got me thinking!

Evers says that ideas are easy to generate, and companies that spend their time on brainstorming, holding contests etc., are wasting their time.  It's the execution of the idea that is hard.  He identifies the three tasks in the innovation process that follow generating ideas: "picking the right idea, expressing enthusiasm, and executing." 

In associations, I've seen these three tasks successfully and unsuccessfully completed:

To pick the right idea, it has to really tie in with the mission.  That seems obvious, but in the heat of a great idea, especially one that will generate revenue, that isn't always one of the highest criteria used.  Sometimes the shiny, sparkly idea gets traction even when it's not really a great fit.  In one association, we had a service that served medical schools, and worked really well for them.   A public school district came to us and asked if we would be interested in developing that same service for them.  But we turned them down, because while the process would be similar and the money attractive, the goals of the institution would not mesh with our mission. But when osteopathic medical schools came to us and asked the same question, we agreed readily.  Both types of schools had excellence in medical education and the health of the nation as key goals, so we were advancing our own mission.

Expressing enthusiasm is entirely dependent on who is the organizational champion.  Every new idea and program needs to have one, a person who champions that idea through all reviews, processes, and budgets.   And that organizational champion needs to be the person who will have direct line responsibility for that program.  That is the person who will eat and sleep this program throughout the typically two years it takes to launch a big one.  They can't be an ideas person who comes up with good ideas, and then tries to hand them over to the line staff, because they can't feel the full pain of implementation.  They can't be too high up the line of command, because then they aren't immersed enough in the details.  But they cannot be too low down the chain because they don't have the access or authority to get the resources they need.  To be just right, they need to be a visible manger or director who is the consistent face of the program to constituents and staff alike. 

And finally, executing requires a commitment by the association to the full time and resources needed.  This thing will need staff, maybe not just one or two, but perhaps a whole team.  They will typically need substantial time from IT, communications and other staff.  And most of these programs need at least one year, and probably two to launch.  Wise associations don't expect the program to even cover its initial costs for three years post launch, and will plan for a modest return on investment even in the long term.