We Get Innovation Wrong Because We Measure the Wrong Thing
Written by: Kaihan Krippendorff
What you measure matters. Consider a bridge built in Laufenburg, a town that straddles Germany and Switzerland. As the two halves of the bridge being built came together, it became (embarrassingly) clear that they would not align because they were at different heights.
As it turns out, how you measure “sea level” varies from one place to another. Britain measures height above sea level in relation to sea levels in Cornwall, and France measures it in relation to the sea level in Marseille. Germany measures height in relation to sea level in the North Sea while Switzerland does so in relation to the Mediterranean Sea.
When measurements miss the boat
While visiting Stockholm several years ago, my wife and I visited the Vasa Museum, which pays tribute to one of the most impressive warships that in 1628 sank less than a mile into its maiden voyage.
The cause, again, was in choosing how to measure. Workmen working on one side of the ship were calibrating their measurement in Swedish feet (about 12 inches per foot) and on the other side in Amsterdam feet (about 11 inches per foot). The resulting asymmetry in weight caused the ship to tip over.
Why innovation fails to measure up
A macro-study of innovation success shows that 83% of innovation efforts fail. Maybe we get innovation wrong so often because we have been measuring the wrong things.
Scan the most popular innovation research and you will see that experts tend to focus on one of three units of measure:
The vast majority of recent innovation research has focused on entrepreneurs: why are they more innovative and agile than larger organizations? We have formalized the entrepreneurial approach into frameworks like “lean start-up” or “design thinking” with the goal of implementing it beyond start-ups.
While an important part of the innovation puzzle, most such efforts fail. Look no further than GE, which soon after broadly injecting “lean start-up” approaches was quickly humbled into a shadow of its former self.
Note, I’m not suggesting applying lean approaches caused GE to stumble, but it certainly did not solve GE’s problems.
There is plenty of research using organizations as the unit of measure. If you take a broad scan of this research, you will find actually that a lot is already known about what elements of culture, organizational structure, incentives, and talent correspond with higher levels of innovation.
What is surprising is how few of the best practices learned from this research are actually known by innovators. The fact that most innovation organizational transformation efforts fail is perhaps a hint that the organization is not the best measure either.
Finally, I am asked regularly to talk about leaders. How can leaders create the context of innovation? What does it mean to be an “agile” leader or a “purpose-driven” leader who can inspire people to act innovatively?
While my research shows that leadership does matter, it is only one part of the equation. Most of society’s big innovations – from the internet and email to DNA sequencing and solar energy – were created within organizations (and not by entrepreneurs) in which leadership did not particularly ask for or encourage innovation.
The importance of employees
After four years of research, I have come to firmly believe that most innovation research is measuring the wrong thing … or at least is overlooking a critical unit of measure: the employee.
We should be looking at the habits, characteristics, patterns of behavior, tools, and journeys of employee innovators. You will find that the people behind society’s greatest innovations were not entrepreneurs, did not work in organizations particularly supportive of innovative behavior, and were not led by leaders who really asked for innovation.
If we start measuring innovation using employees as the unit of measure, maybe we can finally build the bridge from ideas to execution. We can finally sail innovations out into the world without them sinking.
In my upcoming book Driving Innovation from Within, to be released in a month, I attempt to do just that. I package what I have learned over the past four years, after interviewing over 150 employee innovators, and analyzing the unknown heroes behind society’s most impactful innovations.