Posts Tagged ‘open innovation’

New American visionaries at IBM and Cisco

Monday, October 26th, 2009

IBM Cisco 3

It’s become customary to bash American business. Global analysts talk about a secular decline. And yes, US business has become a bit sad and dreary if you’ve spent any time around Detroit lately. But new US business leadership is emerging. Not from small start-ups this time, but from large corporations.

Take IBM. Yes, IBM. Lou Gerstner famously ridiculed the quest for a corporate “vision” in the early ’90s. His vision was only to serve customers and buy back the stock. I still get goose bumps just thinking about it. But Sam Palmisano and his team have crafted a true vision for the company. These guys believe in global collaboration. You can say it’s self-serving, since IBM sells hardware, software, and consulting services that rely on collaboration. But all good visions are self-serving. After all, IBM is a business. The vision of Palmisano’s team also goes beyond business. Their view of the future is centered on humans living on the earth, and how the interaction between both can generate new opportunities for IBM and for its clients.

I like the human centricity and breadth of ambition it conveys. It’s vintage American brassiness on a planetary scale, with a new 21st-century sensitivity. The basic belief is that if you engage a large number of people in a firm – say, 50,000 people in a large corporation — with a large number of its customers – say, another 50,000 – you’ll see new opportunities pop up from this massive co-creation of ideas. IBM has a process and technology called Innovation Jam that makes this Web-based dialogue happen over a period of 72 hours. It’s a messy process – structuring meaningful initiatives out of it is no picnic, and IBM understates the importance of live interactions — but it’s the first approach I’ve seen that approximates global democracy in business.

Taking a (good) page from the Gerstner book, IBM has first transformed itself using this mass co-creation approach internally. They shaped their new values and strategy by connecting the software technician in his Armonk cubicle all the way to the management team. The company’s omnipresent sales force is now running around the world telling customers that IBM has done well using this approach, so now it’s their turn. It’s a bit early to know how successful the approach will be. Because of Innovation Jam’s massive mobilization power, companies tend to use the approach for big issues, such as social responsibility or sustainable development, giving America an opportunity to provide new thought leadership in areas where the US has arguably been lagging (remember Kyoto?).

John Chambers and his team are largely doing the same at Cisco, where the company vision is about the “human network.” Again, Cisco has a vested interest in selling routers and other equipment that equip this human network with hardware, software, and consulting services, but there is a rich, humanistic backdrop to the business which captures the imagination of many. Cisco has even jumped ahead of IBM in thinking through the organizational implications of this new view of innovation. Their experiments provide the freshest ideas in organizational design I have seen in years.

You out there betting on the death of American thought leadership in business do so at your own risk…

We dance

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

I love Joseph Campbell, the great American writer and mythologist. We will leave for another day what myths and comparative religion have to do with co-creation, but for now, let me focus on one of the stories he told (he was an amazing story-teller). The book Power of Myth, also the object of a well-known public television series, is an account of the dialogue between Joseph Campbell and journalist Bill Moyers. In the introduction to the book, Moyers recalls Campbell telling of an American delegate at an international conference on religion, trying to figure out what a Japanse Shinto priest was about.

“We’ve been now to a good many ceremonies and have seen quite a few of your shrines. But I don’t get your ideology. I don’t get your theology.’ The Japanese paused as though in deep thought, and then slowly shook his head. ‘I think we don’t have ideology,’ he said. ‘We don’t have theology. We dance.”

Joseph Campbell’s constant encouragement to experience life rather than theoretize about it is also a great prescription for co-creation. When people probingly ask me to justify why co-creation is different from, say, collaboration, crowd-sourcing, Wikinomics, or open innovation, I know they’re negotiating with me (and probably with themselves) for the right not to try any of them. Of course, my duty as a lecturer and consultant is to patiently walk through the similarities and differences, but I know the dialogue will ultimately be pointless.

Conversely, when I see a little light in someone’s eyes, I know I’m invited to dance. We take a few steps. I can sense when the questions are aimed at discovery rather than evaluation. I become less guarded in my answers. She’s really an interesting person. I’m making up new stuff now. Others are watching us. They sense the energy. They join us in the dance. These people are amazing. Where are these thoughts coming from?

As in Joseph Campbell’s story, I’m not sure co-creation has an ideology. We dance.