sign in sign up
<<
Home , Innovation

REAL INNOVATION TIMELESS TECHNIQUES FROM THE AUTODESK INNOVATION GENOME PROJECT

BILL O’CONNOR Is there such a thing as an “Innovation DNA”? Are there timeless principles that innovators have applied for thousands or even millions of years to create the things that have shaped our world? If so, how can we discover and use these principles to make our own more innovative?

These were some of the questions we most important question: Could we help were wrestling with back in 2011 in the them become more innovative? San Francisco offices of Autodesk, a software company based in Our customers, who create the . It was questions like these and , consumer products and that inspired us to embark on a ten-year industrial , as well as the games, project that would take us back to the TV shows, and feature films we see all earliest origins of innovation—which we around us, must be innovative if they are estimate to be 3.5 million years ago, to succeed, and because Autodesk was starting with the remarkable innovation the company creating the complex tech- known as the stone hand axe—in search nologies that enabled them to do their of what we now call the Innovation work, they quite reasonably assumed that Genome. Autodesk would have some answers to these important questions.

INNOVATION: A TOPIC AS The thing was . . . we usually didn’t. URGENT AS IT IS FUZZY Now, that’s not to say we hadn’t done a So, why the interest in innovation at lot of careful thinking about innovation; Autodesk? It was simple: many of of course we had, as demonstrated by the Autodesk’s best customers—20 million many innovation-related presentations designers, architects, engineers, and digi- Autodesk executives had been giving at tal artists from 160 countries—had conferences and other gather- become intensely focused on the topic, ings. and they were constantly asking us all kinds of things about innovation: Do we know what it really is? Do we know how THE SEARCH FOR REAL it’s done? Do we actually know how to INNOVATION do it at Autodesk? How does Silicon Our executives started making these pre- Valley innovate? And the kicker, the sentations in 2006, when Carl Bass took

80 innovations / Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

over the company’s CEO role. Over the useful insight that every innovation goes next five years, Carl had given a good through five distinct phases: number of high-profile talks about inno- 1. First, the innovation is impossible, vation, which I helped him prepare in meaning no one has ever before done my role as his speechwriter. I also had or created it. been working with Autodesk’s chief officer Jeff Kowalski and vice 2. Second, it becomes impractical, mean- president of strategy Jon Pittman on ing the innovation now exists but is their innovation talks—and I had even available only to a select few. started giving these presentations myself. 3. Third, the innovation becomes possible, By 2011, Autodesk had earned a pretty meaning it has become ubiquitously good reputation for our perspective on available and is a true innovation innovation. We had defined innovation, because it has had a significant impact explored it, debated it, and offered our on the world. perspectives on it hundreds of times in 4. Fourth, it becomes expected, meaning our presentations—and, in the process, it has become commonplace enough we had addressed all of the now well- known topics in the innovation canon: that, while still valuable, it is not sur- prising or novel any more. What is innovation? 5. Fifth, the innovation becomes required,  What’s the difference between inven- in that it has become a fully integrated tion and innovation? part of the world landscape. Should we focus on breakthrough inno- vation or incremental innovation? I developed the Innovation Continuum— which presents the full journey from  Is innovation a cultural phenomenon something being a wild (impossible) or an individual achievement? to being a fundamental part of the world  What processes should organizational (required)—with fellow Autodesker Jim leaders implement to inspire innova- Awe in 2009. This was a great example of tion? our work on innovation around that How can we measure innovation? time: after five years exploring the con- cept and engaging with customers and Almost Useful: The Innovative audiences all over the world on the sub- Continuum ject, we had become adept at helping peo- Along the way we had created some ple think about innovation. However, we interesting concepts, like the Innovation hadn’t yet cracked the code of how to Continuum, which demonstrates the help people actually “do” innovation.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Bill O’Connor is Autodesk’s Innovation , and Founder of the Autodesk Innovation Genome Project. © 2017 Bill O’Connor

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 81

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

Figure 1. The Innovation Continuum

The Dreaded Curse of IBNU— customers—from 3D and robot- “Interesting But Not Useful” ic systems to generative design and artifi- By the spring of 2011, Autodesk had cial —as a source of real become what I would eventually describe innovation. And by real innovation, we as “IBNU”—Interesting But Not Useful. weren’t referring to the kind of “innova- People would listen to our presentations tion poetry” that makes up about 90 per- about innovation and comment on how cent of what we might archly call the interesting they were, but I would think “Innovation Industrial Complex.” No, we to myself, “Well, okay, I’m glad you liked were talking about the exact opposite of the presentation, but I don’t think I’ve that kind of purely theoretical work, and given you a damn thing that can actually we had defined innovation/real innova- help you to become more innovative.” tion as “the art of establishing something Basically, we were offering some com- new or different out in the real world pelling words, images, and concepts that has a significant impact.” At about innovation, but they weren’t pro- Autodesk we had been exploring dozens viding any practical help with the task of innovative projects for the previous itself—it was kind of like spending the five years, which gave us a valuable con- whole summer talking about surfing text for the methodology we would even- without ever getting in the water. tually create.

So the next question was, how do we get The Innovation Secrets of Silicon beyond IBNU and start to develop Valley insights and techniques that will help people become more innovative? Where Our second source for insights about can we look for real-world inspiration innovation was Silicon Valley, that and information about this elusive topic? famous epicenter of technology, startups, We came up with three answers to that and innovation situated in the San question. Francisco Bay Area. We started looking for innovation patterns that made Silicon Valley different (see Figure 2) and were The Autodesk Ecosystem as a able to infuse our innovation work with Source of Innovation Information the spirit and best practices of our home The first answer was to look at the work town. we were doing at Autodesk and with our

82 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

Figure 2. The 7 Innovation Secrets of Silicon Valley

3.5 Million Years of Innovation INNOVATION: IT’S MORE and Inspiration THAN TECHNOLOGY, AND Our third answer to the question of how MORE THAN 30 YEARS OLD to go beyond IBNU was somewhat Why peer all the way back to the dawn of counter-intuitive, but it ultimately for innovation insights and tech- proved both interesting and useful. We niques? knew that the innovation work we’d been doing at Autodesk, and the work Autodesk and Silicon Valley were both being done by other Silicon Valley inno- rich sources of information about inno- vators, would give us two good innova- vation. However, we recognized that, tion datasets. However, we soon saw that because both are based on technology, our scope would need to be broader, and focusing our efforts entirely on those two certainly go beyond the realm of technol- sources would ultimately be very limiting ogy, if we were to achieve our stated and would blind us to, or cause us to objective of creating bona fide innova- devalue, innovations that were not tech- tion techniques. nological per se or not somehow related to technology. We realized that to identify the timeless universal principles of innovation we We also realized that it would be difficult would have to do a little intellectual time to identify any new universal principles travelling—all the way back to the very of innovation if all we did was focus on first innovation in human history, some what everyone else in the innovation 3.5 million years ago. world was focusing on, which was pri- marily the past 30 years of technology. In other words . . . Silicon Valley. We started to realize that, because we were smack in the middle of the global

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 83

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

Figure 3. Innovation Genome Parameters

center of technological innovation, we we considered to be the one thousand were subject to the preconception that greatest innovations in human history, innovation and technology are quasi- and to use that list of human achieve- synonymous, which isn’t true. Most of ments as our guide for developing practi- the recent literature on innovation— cal and robust innovation techniques. focused as it was on people like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, and on com- The Five Kinds of Innovation panies like , Twitter, and Airbnb—featured relatively recent tech- The next challenge we faced was how to nological innovations, but that was just determine the thousand greatest innova- part of the picture, because real innova- tions. To address this challenge, we—and tion goes back much further, and runs by “we” I mean myself plus a small army much more widely, than we usually of MBA students and undergraduates assume. from UC Berkeley and Hult—created a grid that delineated five phases of human Fortunately, if we learned one thing history (see Figure 3) and, to avoid about innovation from the research we weighting the list too heavily in favor of did during our IBNU phase, it was that technology, five types of innovation: the origin of real innovation goes back not decades or even thousands of years, 1. Technological/Scientific but millions of years. Moreover, the full 2. /Entrepreneurial dataset of real innovation is much wider 3. Political/Social than that of technology alone, which is actually just a subset—albeit an impor- 4. Intellectual/Philosophical tant one—of innovation. 5. Creative/Artistic Innovation is 3.5 million years old—a far This “time/type” grid enabled us to select cry from the limited lens we often use to and study innovations that were not pri- frame this topic in Silicon Valley. marily technological, such as the theory Acknowledging this, we decided to cut of evolution, cubism, the corporation, the Gordian Knot of technological deter- democracy, labor unions, open innova- minism by selecting and studying what tion, logic, etc. We selected our first 200

84 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

Figure 4. Greatest Historical Innovations (42/1,000)

innovations, 42 of which are shown atic study of the full realm of innovation above. As we developed this list, we real- was being done in the spirit of the inves- ized that a new corollary was starting to tigations that had led to of the come into view, one that reinforced our Human Genome, as well as the “music previous decision to study the full range genome” that powers the music of innovation. The idea was that the Pandora and other, similar, genome- wider the range of innovations we stud- esque projects. ied, the more robust and universally applicable the techniques derived from Early Epiphanies: Some Essential those innovations would be. That idea turned out to be not only initially prom- Principles of Innovation ising but ultimately true. The grid shown in Figure 5 (see follow- ing page) presents one of the first analy- In other words, we posited that, if we ses we conducted of our list of historical were to study not only how technological innovations. It lists the innovations verti- innovators like Edison and Jobs cally, with a series of six “innovation approached their work but also innova- questions” that we started seeing every- tors such as , the Beatles, Adam where displayed across the top. These six Smith, Georgia O’Keefe, Orson Wells, principles were specific ways of looking and Benjamin Franklin, the techniques at the status quo that had historically led we developed would be of greater practi- to breakthrough innovations: cal use because they would have been drawn from a more universal source. 1. Look: What can we look at differently? 2. Use: What can we use for the first time With this basic framework in place, we started studying our selected innovations or in a new way? one-by-one, looking for any salient pat- 3. Context: How can we look at the status terns we thought could lead to insights quo in a new context? and, eventually, techniques for real inno- 4. Connect: What can we connect that is vation. At some point we realized that we were instinctively creating a kind of currently disconnected? “innovation genome”—that our system-

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 85

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

Figure 5. The Innovation Genome

5. Change: What can we change, alter, or We discovered that one reason these redesign? questions were so powerful was that they offered would-be innovators natural 6. Create: What can we make that is truly pathways out of the status quo and led new? the way to what we could call the “status Once we had identified these questions novo.” Starting with that very first inno- as being ubiquitous in the history of vation from 3.5 million years ago, a spe- innovation, we decided to go deeper and cific set of questions have always been find out more about them—for example, asked, explicitly or implicitly, in the pre- which of them had been asked most fre- innovation stage of any innovation to quently, which had had the greatest arrive at the post-innovation stage. Put impact, etc. another way, the river between “what is”

86 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

Figure 6. Autodesk Innovation Genome Engagements

and “what could be/should be” has the Autodesk Gallery, a kind of design always been be bridged by asking this museum that showcases our customers’ specific set of questions. work and our own fledgling innovations. This location, plus a steady flow of cus- Identifying these potent innovation tomers from around the world who were questions was the first tangible of coming through the gallery to talk with studying the historical innovations, and us about innovation, gave us the ideal over the next six years we got into kind environment in which to test, refine, and of a groove where we would select a new perfect the innovation techniques we set of innovations (usually 50 or 100 at a were developing. time), analyze them to identify useful (and often undiscovered) patterns, and Between 2011 and 2017, we presented derive techniques from those patterns the latest research and techniques from that people could use to do real innova- the Autodesk Innovation Genome tion. Out of this process we developed a Project approximately 450 times—with cohesive innovation methodology com- two particular Autodeskers, Chris Tisdel prised of five specific and interdependent and Jana Hildebrand, playing critical innovation techniques, which we now roles in the development of the project— call the Five Essential Innovation to a wide-ranging set of customers and Techniques. , including the following:

It should be noted that this project, as it  Many of Autodesk’s largest, most evolved, was far from some kind of intel- important customers, generally compa- lectual exercise or purely theoretical nies in industries that are strategically exploration. In fact it was much the important to us and have annual rev- opposite of that—it was a search for enues between $2 billion and $75 bil- insights that would lead to practical and lion powerful innovation techniques. Autodesk’s location in Silicon Valley/San Some of the leading technology compa- Francisco was invaluable in developing nies in Silicon Valley/San Francisco, techniques that would actually work out such as Tesla, Google, Twitter, in the real world, because whenever we , Airbnb, Rocketspace, and did a very first version of a particular LucasArts/ILM technique, we were able to test it instant-  and military organizations, ly in the “living laboratory” of such as the U.S. Department of Defense, Autodesk’s SF offices, which included

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 87

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

Figure 7. Five Essential Innovation Techniques

U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, the White To create our definition, I started by House Presidential Innovation Fellows, researching about 75 other definitions. as well as officials and political leaders There are several reasons why we define from more than 50 countries. (See innovation as we do. First, we consider Figure 6 on the prior page for a selected innovation an art, not a science, as it list of companies.) cannot be accomplished through purely logical means. Creating “something dif- Each presentation gave us a golden ferent or new” requires imaginative, opportunity to hone our techniques, nonlinear, and often counter-intuitive especially when we applied them directly thinking. Moreover, because our goal is to customers’ specific projects and chal- to establish an innovation “in the real lenges. I believe that this combination of world,” we have to think beyond wide-scope research, plus the ability to specs, business plans, and other classic consistently test and improve our tech- elements of “business as usual,” and niques with real people working on real instead focus on the holistic question of projects, is what has enabled the what kind of different or new experience Autodesk Innovation Genome Project to could we create that people would actu- have the impact it has had to date. ally embrace? To do that successfully, we have to combine traditional left-brain INNOVATION: WHAT IS IT approaches with right-brain elements, AND HOW DO YOU DO IT? such as instinct, passion, , etc., otherwise we’re likely to end up with an Having established the context for our (i.e., not an innovation) that, work, we can now turn to our definition even if it is different or new, can’t be of innovation, and then to the five-step established in the real world, and thus methodology we developed for doing ends up having no impact. real innovation. Our definition also states that innovation In our attempt to go beyond IBNU and is about establishing something “differ- create useful techniques, one of the first ent or new,” because many innovations things we did was to determine our own are not new, strictly speaking, but a new definition of innovation: “Innovation is combination of existing , things, the art of establishing something differ- components, , etc., whose new ent or new in the real world that has a arrangement creates the innovation. significant impact.”

88 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

This definition sets us up for success as which to explore opportunities for inno- we work to create real innovation vation. At Autodesk, for example, some because, as we set our sights on establish- of the most important “neighborhoods” ing something in the real world, we have of our own current innovation landscape to take into account all the factors include: involved in doing so—left-brain, right- 1. Cloud Services/Subscription Business brain, and everything in between. Model: Transitioning from our tradi- tional desktop software delivery THE FIVE ESSENTIAL method and our traditional perpetual INNOVATION TECHNIQUES license to an offering With the above definition as our founda- that “lives” in the Cloud and is avail- tion, let’s look at the five-technique inno- able by subscription. vation methodology. To develop these 2. Generative Design: Moving from techniques, we took our current under- “telling the computer what to do” to standing of the 350 innovations we’ve “telling the computer what we’re trying studied thus far and distilled it into a to do,” which means that we give the simple methodology that anyone can computer inputs and it gives us many understand and use. Here are the five design options in return, which we essential innovation techniques that have then curate into (ideally) the best pos- been employed for millions of years by our greatest innovators: sible design. 3. Additive /: 1. Visualize the innovation environment that are fundamentally 2. Develop innovation targets changing the way we make things. 3. Generate innovation ideas 4. The of Things: The process of integrating sensors into the things we 4. Prioritize the innovation ideas create, thereby connecting them and 5. Create innovation projects blurring the line between products, services, and experiences. Innovation Technique #1: 5. Artificial Intelligence: The ongoing Visualize the Innovation development of increasingly intelligent Environment machines, which are getting better and The first technique is to sketch out your better at doing things that were once innovation landscape to create a kind of the provenance of humans (only). “aerial view” of the areas in which you 6. The Future of Work: A holistic exami- might have an opportunity to innovate. nation of all of the above, plus many This visualization starts with four essen- more trends and technologies that are tial blocks—company, cus- shaping the fundamental nature of tomers, , and context—and human work. then lets you map out key elements in each of these areas, as well as connec- One final point about this first tech- tions and lines of influence that illustrate nique: visualizing the innovation envi- valuable interrelations. ronment isn’t a one-time event; it should be constantly updated to reflect the In our research and in the application of changing landscape in which you’re try- these techniques, we’ve found that if you ing to innovate. Moreover, a fully visual- don’t start with a visualization you will ized innovation environment is the most likely miss significant areas in launch pad for the second technique, the

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 89

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

development of innovation targets, as How can we create a foolproof way for described below. the poorest women in the world to save money for their children? Innovation Technique #2:  How can we radically increase the Develop Innovation Targets amount of measurable innovation we The second step is to use the map of achieve? your innovation environment to gener-  How can we identify and hire 50 bril- ate what we call innovation targets. liant young people over the next two These targets are carefully crafted sen- years? tences, each of which outlines a specific area in which you think your innovation After generating these targets, the com- could be easily applied. For example, you pany works on them systematically, might create an innovation target around using the next three steps in the process. leveraging the emerging power of the My sense at this point, based on five Internet of Things for your company, as years of innovation consulting, is that a we’ve done at Autodesk. large, complex should be working on approximately 8-12 innova- Your target could also be an audacious tion targets at a time, and that the disci- goal, like launching three radically differ- pline of identifying, developing, and act- ent products within a year or doubling ing on innovation targets will be a key your revenues within, say, six months. success factor in the future, especially as The outsized ambition of such goals has automation and artificial intelligence a two-pronged benefit. First, just the act make it easier to instantiate bold new of creating innovation targets starts sepa- ideas. rating you and your organization from the competition, which is essential for Once the innovation targets have been innovation. Second, whether or not you identified, we can move through the rest actually hit your specific innovation - of the process, which is to take each of get, the ideas you will generate by trying the targets, one by one, through the to hit it will always yield different, and phases of innovation ideas, innovation definitely wilder, ideas than would come prioritization, and innovation projects. from a more conventional target. Innovation Technique #3: We usually help people generate three to Generate Innovation Ideas five innovation targets, and then take them through the rest of the process, one The third step is to generate innovation target at a time. Here are some of most ideas, starting with a specific innovation powerful innovation targets we’ve used target. In studying innovation systemati- over the past sixƒ years with some of cally, we have identified specific ques- Autodesk’s most strategic and/or largest tions that, when applied to a particular customers: innovation target, generate a tremendous range of new and different ideas. After How can we complete all of our projects we generate them, we develop them, in half the time with no decrease in combine them, and look for the strongest or creativity? ideas or sets of ideas possible.  How can we incorporate generative design into 25 percent of our most Although this technique is the third in the methodology, it’s actually the first we important projects within the next came across in our research, speaking month? purely chronologically. Early on we saw

90 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

that the fundamental “DNA” of even the ing at the following seven questions, most disparate innovations—fire, which we just couldn’t reduce any fur- democracy, steam power, Twitter, etc.— ther and didn’t feel we could improve often included the exact same set of upon. questions that, explicitly or implicitly, had been the driving force in moving For any innovation target you’re focused them from the pre-innovation state to on, you ask: the post-innovation state. In addition, we 1. What could we look at in a new way or discovered that every innovation we from a new perspective? studied had between two and four criti- cal innovation questions embedded in it. 2. What could we use in a new way, or for We eventually compiled a list of about 60 the first time? questions that had been asked through- 3. What could we move, changing its out history by the people who were position in time or space? doing real innovation. 4. What could we interconnect in a differ- Discovering this consistent set of ques- ent way, or for the first time? tions was an exciting development, 5. What could we alter or change in terms because it was the first thing we found of design and performance? that we thought might be part of the true genome for innovation. The only prob- 6. What could we make, creating some- lem, as we quickly realized, was that thing that is truly new? handing someone a list of 60 questions 7. What could we imagine to create a was not a practical way to help them great experience for someone? innovate—especially in today’s fast-mov- ing world. We created this version of the innovation questions five years ago, and they have To test our list of questions against the been used successfully hundreds of times reality of the workplace, we created what by companies from a wide range of we called the “9:17 AM Principle,” which industries and countries around the was based on this scenario: “Okay, it’s world. 9:17 AM and your arch rival/biggest competitor has just launched an incredi- This technique sounds simple, and to ble product that is going to impact your some even simplistic, but it’s not. When and even possibly your corporate you start with a good innovation target strategy (something like the iPhone or and ask these seven questions, the result the Tesla). You are the person responsi- is a set of ideas that is greater in volume, ble for the product that this new arrival quality, and creativity than anything I is attacking, and your CEO just emailed can generate with the techniques I have to say that she wants you to present a known and used for years. This is signifi- response to her by 2 PM the next day.” cant to me because I’m “innovation In such a situation a person needs inno- geeky” enough to know that I’ve run vation techniques they can use quickly about one thousand innovation/strate- and efficiently, which rules out the list of gy/brainstorming sessions in my 20 years 60 questions. in Silicon Valley and have assembled a pretty big bag of tricks over the years. I We kept shaking that list to see which don’t think it’s an accident that this tech- questions would fall out and which nique gets results that are so much better would stay high up in the conceptual than average—after all, it was literally tree. We eventually pared it down to 50 derived from the practices of hundreds questions, then 28, then 14, finally arriv-

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 91

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

Figure 8. The 7/49 Innovation Questions

of innovation geniuses over the past 3.5 posted on the board; out of those ideas, million years. 50 percent to 80 percent will be new ideas. Prioritizing new and potentially At this point, one obvious question is, innovative ideas is particularly difficult “What about all those other innovation because, frankly, organizations are pretty questions?” As we simplified the original bad at prioritizing in general, let alone list of 60 questions down to the essential when facing ideas that are new, startling, seven, we also saw the next layer of the imaginative, etc. innovation questions where, for example, if you’ve already asked the “look” ques- To address this challenge, we looked to tion you can go deeper by asking six innovation history, and also to the some- other questions, which are all different what odd (but also cool) practice of start- ways to look at things differently. up competitions. When I serve as a judge in these competitions, usually in Silicon Figure 8 above displays six specific ways Valley, I usually vote against a startup to ask the seven general innovation ques- team for one of two reasons—and some- tions listed above, for a total of 49 ques- times both: tions. Each of the 49 questions will help you generate different innovation ideas 1. One is that their idea isn’t wild enough, than each of the others. So, in the phase meaning it’s not different, surprising, where you’re generating innovation imaginative, creative, etc., which in ideas, you can choose to use only the turn means it’s not likely to give the seven questions, or include some or all of customer a “Wow!” experience—or the the 49. competition an “Uh-oh . . .” So, to recap: once you’ve (1) visualized 2. The other is that their idea isn’t worldly the innovation environment, (2) devel- enough, meaning it’s not sufficiently oped some innovation targets, and (3) grounded in the dynamics and condi- generated a range of innovation ideas for tions of the real world, and is therefore a specific target, it’s time to prioritize just not that doable. those ideas and decide which to pursue. A session with the innovation questions With these reasons in mind, we decided usually results in about 50 ideas being to reverse-engineer this double-failure

92 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

Figure 9. Innovation Prioritization

metric and switch it around to be a dou- 1. Rated a 3/3: This kind of idea has limit- ble-positive metric—something that ed “wildness” and is also fairly hard to would measure both how wild and how do. We don’t adopt ideas in this quad- worldly an idea was—and therefore, how rant because there are better ones to “high priority” it was (see Figure 9). consider. 2. Rated a 3/7: This idea is kind of boring Innovation Technique #4: or unimaginative, but it’s easy to do. Prioritize the Innovation Ideas This is the kind of doable but blah idea We start this phase of the process by ask- that passes for innovation in many ing two questions about every idea: how organizations. Ideas like this are also wild is it, and how worldly? By wild we often classified as incremental innova- mean how different it is, how surprising, tion. It’s hard to make a boring idea how radical, and what potential it has to more interesting, so we give these ideas change things in an impactful way. By limited consideration. worldly we mean how practical and how 3. Rated a 7/3: This idea is very wild but doable it is—in other words, how realis- not very worldly—not yet. This quad- tic it is to attempt the idea. The group rant is a great place to look for innova- votes on each idea by a quick show of tive ideas because, with targeted brain- hands and, based on the results, we look for the highest ranking ideas. For exam- storming, we can make it more practi- ple, a 7/7 idea is one the group has cal so it can move to the upper-right ranked as relatively wild and relatively quadrant, which is where we want our worldly—in short, an idea worth serious ideas to be. This quadrant is usually consideration. where corporate innovation goes to die, because it’s hard to defend ideas Four ideas are shown in the sample rat- that are not yet practical. That’s one of ing chart above, each schematically rep- the reasons this quadrant structure is resenting its specific quadrant:

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 93

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

so useful—it allows the group to see further development is needed, improved that, while the idea is not yet practical, to raise its overall score. as part of this process we can work to make it more practical. Innovation Technique #5: Create 4. Rated a 7/7: This idea is both wild and Innovation Projects worldly, which means it is well on the The fifth step is to select the two highest way to becoming a valuable innovative rated innovation ideas and convert them idea. We can keep improving ideas in into innovation projects. This is the final this quadrant until they reach the rela- essential technique, because for real tively exalted status of a 9/9. innovation to happen it must be chan- And that is the main point of the fourth neled in a way that the typical organiza- technique: to identify and/or create inno- tion can engage with—a.k.a., as a project. vation ideas that are at least a 7/7. Once No matter how dysfunctional or non- we hit this range, the excitement in the innovative, every organization has some room usually rises perceptibly, because mechanisms in place to execute projects, people start to see that these are not only and ending up with a real project to exe- great ideas but also easy to do—in other cute is one of the reasons I think this words, the best of both worlds. methodology has gained traction in recent years. Once you take a potentially By the end of the fourth technique we powerful innovation idea and ground it usually have the following: in the form of a project—the atomic par-  Some ideas in quadrant 1 (3/3 ideas) ticle of organizations—it becomes harder that are not worth pursuing to avoid doing it because, after all, focus- ing on projects is what we do at work,  Some ideas in quadrant 2 (3/7 ideas) right? that are usually not worth pursuing, although some of these ideas can occa- Let’s say we’re starting with a theoretical sionally be made “wilder” with some 9/9 idea, which means that the group has targeted brainstorming deemed it both extremely wild and extremely worldly. At this point the  Some ideas in quadrant 3 (7/3 ideas) group is usually pretty excited, because that are definitely worth pursuing and people want to get right to work on an improving, so that they can move up idea with so much potential. To help into quadrant 4 them continue that momentum, we developed a four-step technique for turn- Some ideas in quadrant 4 (7/7 ideas, 8/8 ing a brilliant 9/9 idea into a doable proj- ideas, 9/9 ideas) that are definitely ect: worth pursuing  Brilliant Description: First you As we segue to the next technique, the describe the idea as accurately and creation of innovation projects, we pick the two best ideas to move forward in the compellingly as possible in a one-page process. However, we also make sure to summary. This is critical, because at capture other promising ideas from this this point you’re trying to create a kind fourth phase of the process, and use of “conceptual tank” that can roll across them to establish an ongoing list of inno- the (most likely) hostile landscape of vation ideas. Any idea on this list can be your organization and withstand all the brought out again at any time and either incoming fire. A perfectly crafted sum- be evaluated as a potential project or, if mary is powerful because it reflects pre- cise thinking, and you will need that

94 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

kind of precision to explain, defend, yes, you’ll (finally) be in the best possi- and evolve your basic idea as you devel- ble position to do some innovative op your innovation project. work.  Thought Experiment: You next write These are the five essential innovation another one-pager that is positive and techniques we developed based on future focused. As much as the brilliant insights we gained from studying 350 description is neutral and accurate, the innovations over the course of 3.5 mil- thought experiment should be opti- lion years. We apply them consistently at mistic and brimming with all the good Autodesk/SF, and in many locations things you expect to happen as a result around the world through the Autodesk of your innovation project. This docu- consulting team. ment is helpful in identifying additional possibilities and avenues for success, APPLYING THE AUTODESK and when it’s done it’s useful to go back INNOVATION GENOME and review the brilliant description for METHODOLOGY: CASE any potential changes. STUDIES  Threat Assessment: This one-pager is Over the past six years we’ve engaged as negative—and, frankly, paranoid— with all kinds of organizations around as the thought experiment is positive. the world. The following case studies— This is essential because, as you move which include two in-depth studies and a forward, different people are going to few top-level summaries—show why and ignore, resist, and even block your idea how the Autodesk Innovation Genome for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say methodology was applied and what the that you must identify the people you results were. think are going to oppose you and try to predict when they are likely to do so, Case Studies and how much resistance they will put up. This document is also likely to yield Fluor insights that can help you polish and In March 2014, I began talking with perfect your brilliant description. Chris Tisdel—a fellow Autodesk innova- Boss Approval: Once you’ve written up tion strategist at the time and now the these three documents, you’re ready for founder of the innovation consulting the final part of technique #5: the boss firm Ruckus—about innovation with approval. The point here is to con- Fluor, a leading global and company. Fluor expressed sciously set your innovation project interest in doing something really differ- apart from your other projects; if you ent, in finding ways to go beyond tradi- don’t, your new project will likely suffer tional brainstorming within the company from the lack of attention, resources, and to generate some genuine disrup- etc., that most innovation work experi- tion. In response to this challenge, we ences. If you come in with a highly suggested that they introduce a small rated innovation project and your boss group of Fluor staff to the Innovation is really committed to innovation, you Genome methodology; specifically, to should get a resounding “Yes.” If they run the group through a two-day work- don’t, well, that’s another topic entirely shop on how they could engage their (and it says more about your boss than customers in new and different ways. the idea itself). But assuming they say

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 95

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Bill O’Connor

At this two-day workshop, that handful of workshops in which they generated of individuals produced hundreds of hundreds of ideas, some of them very ideas that were eventually prioritized disruptive. They were given 90 days to according to Fluor’s perceived degree of develop their business plans, which value and ease of implementation. These would culminate in a “ Tank” type prioritized ideas were further vetted, of presentation to Fluor’s “C-suite.” based on how much each Fluor partici- pant was willing to invest in each The success of the first Innovation idea/initiative. The Fluor participants Unwrapped event led Fluor to do a sec- were impressed with the results of this ond event in the fall of 2016, also at the methodology, and suggested to their Autodesk Gallery in San Francisco, with business transformation and innovation even more people. The second event was team that they adopt the Innovation also successful in generating some poten- Genome as a standard part of their tially innovative ideas, which the Fluor process moving forward. teams are currently pursuing.

In the following months, the conversa- Hult Prize tion around innovation at Fluor grew stronger, with the Innovation Genome at While presenting an early version of the its heart. Fluor was planning a major Innovation Genome to the Hult innovation event they called Innovation International School of Business in 2012, Unwrapped, and they were curious about I met Saul Minkoff and Karl Teien, who whether the Innovation Genome might were getting their MBAs at Hult. They have a part to play in the workshops at were also in the early stages of develop- this event. Chris suggested that they give ing their startup idea for the Hult Prize a workshop to a large, diverse group of competition, a global event held jointly Fluor participants to assure the business with the Clinton Global Initiative. It transformation and innovation group involved two thousand teams from uni- that the methodology not only would versities across the world in a competi- work but would be of great value in tion to found a startup around a central guiding Innovation Unwrapped partici- theme. That year the theme was to allevi- pants to create some “big ideas.” Chris ate food insecurity for 20 million people facilitated this workshop successfully and living in urban slums within the next five was given the go-ahead to develop a years. Saul, Karl, and their teammates weeklong workshop that would fuel the had just begun working on their idea for Innovation Unwrapped event. the competition: a startup called Pulse Savings. The first annual Innovation Unwrapped event was hosted by Autodesk in its San They had seen the Genome presentation Francisco Gallery in November 2015. and thought the methodology could help Forty-nine participants were chosen them develop their startup for the com- from roughly 800 entries from every part petition. We prepared for the regional of Fluor’s business around the globe. competition (San Francisco Bay Fluor also brought multiple executives to Area/Silicon Valley) over the next few act as coaches and mentors for each months, using the Genome methodology team. The participants spent a week in to innovate around every aspect of the workshops where the Innovation startup, and we were excited to win that Genome was used, first to generate and regional competition, coming in ahead of prioritize new and different ideas, and teams from Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT. then as a launching pad for those ideas. From there we advanced into the finals, The teams left San Francisco after a week where six teams (out of the initial 2,000)

96 innovations / Policy Design

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021 Real Innovation

would present their ideas in front of ogy around the world and into the President Clinton, Nobel Laureate realm of government. Muhammad Yunus, and a thousand  Innovation Consultants: Leading other dignitaries in City. Silicon Valley-based innovation con- Although Pulse Savings didn’t win the sultants Michael Perman and Judah million-dollar prize that night, they con- Pollack have both applied the Genome tinued their work after the competition. techniques to their clients; they have They raised substantial found the methodology modular funding and built out the technology enough to incorporate into their own platform while working in India. This consulting techniques. They sometimes was one of the first times the Genome use the techniques as they are, and had been used successfully in the early sometimes tweak and revise them in stages of creating a startup, and it gave us interesting ways to fit the needs of par- many insights into how to make the ticular clients. techniques even stronger. WHAT’S NEXT? Case Study Summaries At Autodesk we have spent the past year  CDM Smith: At this -based connecting the Autodesk Innovation design and engineering firm, CIO Genome Project to other innovation ini- David Neitz applied the five essential tiatives inside the company. The result is innovation techniques over the course called the Future of Making Things of a year. That process led to a specific workshop, which is now being rolled out breakthrough innovation that played a around the company and to our cus- key role in Neitz being given a 2016 tomers as a comprehensive program for helping customers envision and create leadership award by the CIO their own specific future of making Symposium at MIT Sloan. things. Rocketspace: This is one of the world’s leading innovation accelerators, with In terms of the Genome per se, to date locations in San Francisco and London we have examined 350 of the 1,000 his- and soon more to come around the torical innovations we’re ultimately plan- ning to study, and from that dataset world. We’ve presented the Genome we’ve derived the five-technique methodology at many Rocketspace methodology described in this narrative. conferences and events and taught it to We currently are taking a break from their Fortune 500 clients, many of analyzing the historical innovations and whom have applied it at their compa- have shifted our focus to applying and nies. evolving the current methodology, but at  Real Change: This is a company that some future point we are going to study offers learning expeditions to Silicon the full list of one thousand great histori- Valley, where they bring people and cal innovations, which I believe will lead teams from around the world to learn to additional insights and techniques. about the latest in technology and inno- The past six years have been quite a jour- vation. We have presented the Genome ney for us, and with innovation becom- methodology to dozens of groups— ing an increasingly important topic in many from European and Asian gov- the global , we’re looking for- ernments—through Real Change, ward to the next chapter of the Autodesk which has helped spread the methodol- Innovation Genome.

innovations / volume 11, number 3/4 97

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00258 by guest on 30 September 2021