Why is it that small companies, like CESAT -where the innovation group is made up of 5 people- thrive on innovation, but big companies frequently fail at this crucial survival and growth process? Is it the size? …the general weirdness? …or the independence from industry?
Why is it that small companies, like CESAT -where the innovation group is made up of 5 people- thrive on innovation, but big companies frequently fail at this crucial survival and growth process? Is it the size? …the general weirdness? …or the independence from industry?
Creativity and Mass Productivity won´t go easily hand in hand. That´s because they are very different concepts, almost to a point of mutual exclusion. [1]
You can have Innovation and you can have Mass Productivity, but not both.
Some folks have been trying to reconcile these two troublesome characters of adaptation, evolution, and success. Then again, why try and stuff them into the same box, if it´s much easier to keep them apart? It´s a conceptual and operative mistake, to assume that they MUST live close together. As we have already seen in past articles of this series, keeping them at a healthy distance from each other is good for both creativity AND mass productivity (as well as for the “managerial division” of the company). [2] [3] [4]
It has also become exceedingly clear that in order to yield optimum results, the innovation group (or Think Tank) has to be kept alive and sharp by tending to a very broad spectrum of problems. [4] In many cases, more than what a typical company could provide. So, a handful of very different companies could share one Think Tank to solve technological problems, source innovation, and produce general progress. If the scope is broad enough and the challenges big enough, the Think Tank will literally take off, and begin to yield amazing results.
When a Think Tank is allowed to grow too soon, too early, and too big, it´s generally detrimental to its capabilities. Therefore, “petite et agile” is the most promising recipe. Many a Start-Up is initially born as a Think Tank but loses its innovative edge as it later grows into an unwieldly Behemoth. This is not necessarily an undesirable result, as Start-Ups generally want to become a large and successful company. The problem arises by misinterpreting a Think Tank as exclusively a Start-Up or a Start-Up factory. [5] The long-term success of a Think Tank is to generate more innovation and creativity, which can result in a whole array of outcomes: better products, patents, tech transfer, Start-Ups and Spinoffs, strategic partnerships, etc., etc., etc. To limit the focus to only one outcome, like Start-Ups, is an excellent way to suffocate many future opportunities.
Any attempt to limit the products of a Think Tank should only be carried out “Post-Think Tank”. You may go cherry-picking the output, but NEVER the input or the process.
Fantastically efficient Think Tanks really aren’t bulky. They normally comprise just a handful of people, like one Central Innovator and four Satellite Innovators, and maybe one or two peripherical characters, in a basically horizontal structure. That may sound counter-intuitive, but remember:
“You cannot innovate in your comfort zone!”
…meaning: “You can only innovate outside your comfort zone”,
…or “You cannot use specialists for innovation”.
When it comes to Think Tanks, less is more!
The Central Innovator is commonly a vortex of weirdness, while the surrounding Satellite Innovators are way more able to relate to daily life. The whole micro universe of the Think Tank is made up of exotic creatures, many of which can only thrive in a protected environment.
>em>…and the closer you get to the center, the stranger it gets.
Also, Satellite Innovators are sometimes “Centrals in Training”. Like many nuclear reactors that produce nuclear fuel as a by-product, besides being dangerous, and more effective at a distance and under isolated conditions, a Think Tank can produce Innovators for some others through the education of future Central and Satellite Innovators. This is the preferred way to prevent the Think Tank from growing too big, while it´s also the only way to avoid the all-engulfing destruction that arises from the clash between two Central Innovators. The mental image of a beehive pops up immediately…
As with any human endeavor, however, the human dimension itself can be one of the most critical challenges. The opinions we express here are not in the sense of professionals in psychology or human resources. The descriptions are meant to paint a broad brush of decades of experiences in these spaces, and not intended to mischaracterize specific personality types and interactions. Innovative individuals often fall into one of two categories of “social abilities”: They’re either profoundly insecure and/or introverted, or they’re egomaniacs and/or extremely extroverted. The former live in a state of self-doubt, needing frequent validation. While it may seem that we are not being very flattering with this description, these innovators are usually the best people to contribute to a successful outcome, as they are constantly pushing to improve and will be much more willing to analyze their own work with a critical eye. Unfortunately, their need for validation means that they can be manipulated and taken advantage of by the second group, the egomaniacs.
A good question to explore this further: Who worked with Thomas Edison at the Invention Factory? There is a great article by the U.S. National Parks Service which helps care for some of the Edison work and history that gives a brief overview: https://www.nps.gov/edis/learn/kidsyouth/the-gifted-men-who-worked-for-edison.htm.
It´s a common mistake to measure the importance of innovators by their face-time, index of publications, interviews, patent registrations, or other connotations of “first” or “leader”. Throughout history, most Think Tanks or R&D centers have been unfair to their creatives. Many times, the people who generate or discover the “newness” are the timid, hard-working guys, not the egomaniacs, who in the end tend to soak up the attention with their media-friendly personalities. [6] The properly motivated and focused egomaniac will provide motivation, inspiration, and a conduit for communication that may be difficult for the other members of the Think Tank to provide as effectively. A correctly assembled Think Tank needs all its parts, and someone should play referee and level the table when it comes to outgoing communications. The fairness in this issue is of utmost importance and should be envisioned as one of the services the main company (or handler) provides, because it preserves the Think Tank for years to come and boosts the productivity through the roof.
Encouragement and support are like Oxygen!
By understanding the various roles and personalities present, the delicate ecosystem of the Think Tank can thrive and grow with members amplifying each other’s strengths and helping to counter and bolster the weaknesses. All this, while actively eliminating toxic habits that can turn the Think Tank into a failed experiment.
No person in the Think Tank is a stand-alone genius. They are all part of a bigger scheme, where the well-known, but not equally well-understood, technique of Brainstorming produces a superhuman capability through something akin to the Vulcan-Style Mind-Meld (as portrayed in the Sci-Fi series “Star Trek”). [7]
This technique somehow enables people to work as a near hive-mind, capable of solving multi-factorial problems that surpass the normal human scope. While the how’s and why´s are still being investigated, the method has been applied successfully for millennia. In this case too, the specific integrands of the group are important, because of their way and ease to join in. Sometimes, the substitution of a single person proves to be disruptive to the whole. Any change that affects the confidence of the group adversely, will cause the “shields” to pop up immediately, putting an end to innovation.
One of the functions of the Think Tank is to help provide the conditions that will keep the most creative conditions in a nearly constant “on” state. There is even science related to specifically addressing the neurobiology behind this creativity boost. [8]
Human innovation is what puts humans in a league of their own. It’s not only desirable, but absolutely vital to our survival on this world and beyond. Whenever necessary, it has been kindled, encouraged or enforced at any cost throughout history. Many of the most functional Think Tanks have been military installations, made to overcome the gargantuan challenges posed by war, like DARPA for the United States Military. However, the military does not have a monopoly on creating the necessary conditions for a great Think Tank. As we have mentioned before, UPAEP has had tremendous success in achieving these goals through the CESAT. In sharing these insights and background, we invite you to reach out to us (Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo. and Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo.) and see what the CESAT can do as a partner both within the institution and outside.
We have done something amazing in sparking this unique ecosystem within UPAEP. Now let’s be transformational and use this opportunity to continue making a great and lasting impact in Mexico and beyond.
Referencias / References
[1] ANISA PURBASARI HORTON. (2019, Mar.) Fast Company. [Online].
https://www.fastcompany.com/90325414/ithe-relationship-between-creativity-and-productivity
[2] Alfred Max Hofbauer Balmori and Juan Manuel Lopez Oglesby, "A Primer on Innovation," CESAT and Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2019. [Online].
https://upress.mx/index.php/opinion/editoriales/innovacion-y-tecnologia/4249-a-primer-on-innovation
[3] Alfred Max Hofbauer Balmori and Juan Manuel Lopez Oglesby, "A PRIMER ON INNOVATION - CHAPTER 2," CESAT and Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2019. [Online].
https://upress.mx/index.php/opinion/editoriales/innovacion-y-tecnologia/4250-a-primer-on-innovation-chapter-2
[4] Alfred Max Hofbauer Balmori and Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "A Primer on Innovation, Chapter 3," CESAT and Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2019. [Online].
https://upress.mx/index.php/opinion/editoriales/innovacion-y-tecnologia/4386-a-primer-on-innovation-chapter-3
[5] Angela Chen. (2019, Mar.) The Verge. [Online].
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/18277218/safi-bahcall-loonshoots-science-business-innovation-history-interview
[6] Paul Woods. (2019, Mar.) Fast Company. [Online].
https://www.fastcompany.com/90318300/egomaniac-designers-arent-just-annoying-theyre-bad-for-business
[7] Michael Franco. (2017, July) New Atlas. [Online].
https://newatlas.com/conversations-vulcan-mind-meld/50575/
[8] University of Pennsylvania. (2013, Mar.) Science Daily. [Online].
https://goo.gl
[9] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "The Economic Impact of Innovation," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2017. [Online].
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314144356.htm
Dr. Juan Manuel López Oglesby
Director, Posgrados en Ciencias de la Ingeniería Biomédica
UPAEP
Fis. Alfred Max Hofbauer Balmori
Consultor Tecnológico e Innovador, CESAT
UPAEP
