I've been giving more thought lately to successful innovation in a large organization. Having been successful, not-so-successful, and having failed, on a variety of teams in a number of different areas, I'm feeling good about this hypothesis. I'm a little bashful about even calling it a hypothesis, it seems so obvious and perhaps a little trite. But, anyway, here it is.
Not exactly magical, but it helps me think about some things. I work in a company dominated -- utterly and completely -- by "How to do it People". The engineering focus at Microsoft is almost complete. The other, and largely separate, contingent is the "How to present it People" -- marketing. Both are "hows": heads and tails of the same coin really, though they'd fight to the death denying the comparison. In some places there is a planning function. They're the closest we get to "What to do People". However, in most cases they're dominated by either one or another of the "hows". Generally that relegates them to the creation of MRDs and PRDs and, while valuable (I've authored a few myself), aren't the really valuable work of the "whats". Of course, I'm speaking in generalities and there are exceptions.
What, you may ask, does a "what" do? To put it succinctly, if not clearly, a "what" overlays disparate conceptual maps and identifies new patterns that have potential value. It's a skill. (Well, in fairness, I must believe it is given that I've spent so long working on it. So if it's not, I'd be the last to know and probably wouldn't admit it even then.) They take ideas from one place, and apply them in another. Sometimes ideas quite distant, sometimes ideas relatively closely related. Tagspace and Claimspace are personal, though not perfect, recent examples. Tagspace = social bookmarking + site tagging. Claimspace = longtail + social recognition.
To an average "how", discussion with an inexperienced "what", quickly becomes difficult. "How's" are all over analyzing what the successful "whats" have been up to and how to do those things better. Successful "whats", after all, create a new lexicon. It's easy to talk about what Amazon did, or sort of still does, what Google is doing, or the current buzz, what Facebook is all about. Just think of all the new words and phrases we have from those companies. Easy, that is, now that those things exist. "Whats" on the other hand, live in the lexicon creation world. "Whats" are wired that way. To a "how" that discussion seems entirely impractical -- somewhere way out there.
"How" domination makes it difficult to pursue genuinely new ideas. Need evidence that Microsoft is indeed in this situation? I doubt it, but some Microsofties might. Check out this recent post that I think presents the world's view of Microsoft:
Organizations start off with some balance, and then (I think this is generally true) quickly become "how" dominated. It's the sensible thing to do -- really. Or was. Now that business cycles, at least in the online space, appear to be shortening, that MO may need rethinking. That's may need rethinking -- innovation and profitabilty are not directly related. The tortoise may indeed beat the hare.
Anyway, putting together a team that values the contribution of both the "hows" and the "whats" is a requirement if any organization intends to experience more than one wave of innovation. If Apple hadn't done it -- or should we say if Jobs hadn't done it -- I'd wonder if it was possible. I suspect it takes a supreme act of corporate will. I wonder if it requires desperation.