Are you making familiar mistakes with innovation?

Is KM the same phenomenon as innovation? The initial reaction to this question might be “of course not,” but it came from the editor’s (to my mind astute) observation that wherever he went, they seemed to be considered the same thing. So, it’s an interesting question which, in this article, I propose to tackle from a worm’s-eye view – that is, based largely on working with many organizations as they struggle to implement both knowledge management and innovation practices.

 

Are KM and innovation the same?

First, some definitions. In order to avoid the wearisome debates about the exact definition of KM, I’ll go with the pornography rule of knowing it when I see it and use the following: successful KM provides knowledge that might not otherwise be available through the usual channels of publication, study and personal contact. Innovation meanwhile, is a ground-breaking, category-shattering, revolutionary change in how we see the world.

So, back to the original question. Are they the same thing? Or at the very least, is KM a necessary precursor to innovation? At one level, it makes sense to agree with either formulation. After all, innovation is typically based on the work of previous innovators. And, presumably, it’s easier to innovate if you have easy access to others’ knowledge, insights and understandings.
But my observation is KM does not seem to produce innovation. The most it produces, even successful KM, is a better mouse trap. Improvement rather than innovation (which is a valuable commodity in and of itself). But innovation? So consistently you could argue it is a necessary precursor? I’m not converted to that way of thinking and I’ve not seen any evidence to support that idea.

I think KM and innovation are closely tied due to a confusion between knowledge management and knowledge. That knowledge is a precursor or necessary condition for innovation, I have little doubt. But that a true innovator will be stymied if they don’t have knowledge not typically shared among colleagues? I remain to be convinced of that.
However, rather than degenerating into an argument which is based largely on “Yes, it is!” and “No, it isn’t!”, the more interesting question is whether they should be treated the same, even if they are – to my mind – different phenomena.

 

The common dilemma

When organizations decide to undertake either KM or innovation, they typically approach it in a similar way. They develop an often elaborate process – some worthy of building a 747 – to “manage the project,” with the hallmarks of a good project – careful encouragement of grassroots ideas, judicious seed funding, regular reviews, pilots, prototypes, the infusion of technology (a great deal in the case of KM) and in the end hopefully, the desired result.

I think KM has found and innovation is finding that all these mighty labors produce nothing close to the excited and exciting prospects when the ideas were first launched. Why? I believe the answer lies in the very process by which either initiative is implemented.

In the case of KM, there was a long and expensive detour into technology as the answer, on the assumption that everything worth knowing could be codified. But what’s of critical value is not primarily what’s easy to capture and record, but rather the wisdom of employees. This is difficult to transfer to a mechanical process because it’s context, experience, and situation-based. It seems that in recent years, the KM field has come around to the idea that effective KM is a people-based activity. Similarly, innovation practitioners have looked to set up a process by which they can “manage” innovation.

Although often less reliant on technology than early KM efforts, this process nevertheless focused on dividing the process into doable, measurable and deliverable bits whose sum would result in innovation. However, a good system, almost by definition, is a predictable one. And innovation is inherently unpredictable. So, how likely is it that a management system based on maximizing predictability will produce an essentially unpredictable phenomenon and why is it unpredictable? Again, because the source of the innovation lies in people – individual employees’ willingness, ability and interest in contributing to the company’s good. Even more than KM, it’s clear organizations cannot compel this phenomenon to happen (for example, “You will be innovative at 10:00 tomorrow morning”).

 

The common solution

Even if you agree that KM and innovation are primarily people-based issues, why don’t they act like other activities? After all, people successfully implement business activities as well as these more esoteric things. Here are two examples to illustrate what I think is going on.

One of my early KM clients wanted a Yellow Pages to document employees’ skills. They also wanted to go further and collect people’s contact information. That is, if my Uncle Joe was a big shot in Acme Manufacturing, I should record that so people could call him if the need arose.

Although I had some doubts that this would work, since we were all at the experimental stage of KM, we gave it a shot. Almost no one gave up any names, for completely understandable reasons. If Uncle Joe is a great contact, I probably want to keep on his good side in case I need to tap his expertise or network myself. Given that, I don’t want to annoy him with unnecessary or frivolous requests and I have to trust the person with whom I share my contact. It’s not enough to have the mechanism to share knowledge – people have to want to do it.
In another example, related to innovation, major customers of a company were demanding it fix its complaint resolution process. The solution was radical and included involving customers from problem identification to solution. It would have worked, was a cheap fix and the customers would have been happy. Unfortunately, it never got off the ground because to implement it, the executives of the company would have had to cede much of the control over how complaints were resolved to more junior employees.

In both examples, neither the employees nor the executives were evil, stupid or more than averagely self-centred. They were trying to maximize their ability to retain control of what they value, preserve their power, and minimize risk. Who doesn’t? Who seeks to lose control of their work, give away their power, or take risks for which the rewards are uncertain? For what? For the good of the company? Publicly, of course, everyone supports that. Privately, I’m trying at least not to lose what I might have spent a career to obtain, even if that means tanking the change.

 

Common failures

These two examples illustrate what I’ve seen over and over again.
By ignoring the cultural and organizational issues needed to successfully implement KM or innovation, they doom them their efforts to failure. The people issues, far from being simply “resistance” which once labeled can be powered through and steamrolled over, are the essence of a successful transition. Without attention to them, companies doom their initiatives to failure.

Thus, KM and innovation come together in that they both require an organizational culture where people want to and are allowed to be innovative and share their knowledge. It’s harder than setting up a process, but ultimately more effective. I think KM and innovation come together at one point: they both generate huge cultural/organizational issues. My observation is that not only do organizations not tackle these issues, they’re actually not even aware of their importance. Instead, they put a lot of money and energy into these initiatives only to find that, in the end, they have had very little return on investment. Well, unless you count that everyone talks about innovation instead of improvement and knowledge instead of information. But that’s a lot offort and expense to go to just for a vocabulary change.