6 ms·

Would you say that, for this reason, large companies should maintain small insulated "Google X"-style incubation divisions to attempt to get the best of both wo

Would you say that, for this reason, large companies should maintain small insulated "Google X"-style incubation divisions to attempt to get the best of both worlds (stability of the big company with the risk-taking of the small)?

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
There has to be someone, or some group, to translate crazy cool ideas into viable products that match a market need. Ideas and inventions on their own are not enough. I know plenty of corps have a skunkworks R&D division. But - with the possible exception of Steve Jobs - I've never seen an equivalent elite skunkinnovation marketing division which exists solely to turn brilliant original ideas into brilliant marketable products for new customer groups.
eloisant 11y ago
Some do, but they still have difficulties to incorporate those "incubation divisions" ideas and benefit from the innovation.
tsunamifury 11y ago
I think creating separate quasi-elite innovation groups ruins the spirit of innovation for the overall corp culture. It should be emphasized that everyone has "Google X"-like responsibility, and managers especially need to be trained to listen, accept, and support suggested projects by their reports.
- huac 11y ago
  The goal generally is to split the company into "exploitation" and "exploration" divisions, as in the types of innovations that the divisions pursue. So, the traditional group still innovates, but focuses on product or incremental innovations. The 'innovation group' then is one that has free rein to pursue 'radical innovations.' In general - exploitation requires homogeneity and consensus, while exploration benefits from heterogeneity and episodes of conflict. This still focuses everyone on innovative effort, but if management can identify how people fit in / which kinds of innovations they can do best, then this 'ambidexterous' organizational structure can work well. Additionally, the 'elite' language is pretty bad - you're right, we should encourage everyone to innovate, and should encourage incremental improvements, which certainly have great value as well. It's easier to see the value of a radical innovation, but also the risk as well.
  - derefr 11y ago
    I would argue that everyone wants to be in the "innovation group"—it's where all the challenge is, it's where all the stuff that looks good on their resume is, and it's just plain inherently more interesting subject matter—and that those who end up "exploiting" rather than "exploring" feel like they've lost out because of this. Plus, R&D engineers frequently have less oversight and better pay. The real problem is that the decision-process for who ends up in R&D—and who ends up handling dumb production bugs their whole life—looks more like the military officer/enlisted split than like a single career track. We have extremely talented, extremely experienced engineers who are 20-year "Non-Commissioned Officers", still stuck in the bullpen, while some of the newbies mysteriously end up fluttering away to be Ensigns.
- ferentchak 11y ago
  I was working with some larger companies that ran internal hackathons to see if they could create smaller product improvements or advantageous changes to internal processes. One of the "prizes" that the teams one was having their product funded and getting to take the time to build it. R&D employees seemed to get a large boost of energy and optimism from trying these events while the company harvested innovation and efficiency.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

There has to be someone, or some group, to translate crazy cool ideas into viable products that match a market need. Ideas and inventions on their own are not enough. I know plenty of corps have a skunkworks R&D division. But - with the possible exception of Steve Jobs - I've never seen an equivalent elite skunkinnovation marketing division which exists solely to turn brilliant original ideas into brilliant marketable products for new customer groups.

eloisant 11y ago

Some do, but they still have difficulties to incorporate those "incubation divisions" ideas and benefit from the innovation.

tsunamifury 11y ago

I think creating separate quasi-elite innovation groups ruins the spirit of innovation for the overall corp culture. It should be emphasized that everyone has "Google X"-like responsibility, and managers especially need to be trained to listen, accept, and support suggested projects by their reports.

huac 11y ago
The goal generally is to split the company into "exploitation" and "exploration" divisions, as in the types of innovations that the divisions pursue. So, the traditional group still innovates, but focuses on product or incremental innovations. The 'innovation group' then is one that has free rein to pursue 'radical innovations.' In general - exploitation requires homogeneity and consensus, while exploration benefits from heterogeneity and episodes of conflict. This still focuses everyone on innovative effort, but if management can identify how people fit in / which kinds of innovations they can do best, then this 'ambidexterous' organizational structure can work well. Additionally, the 'elite' language is pretty bad - you're right, we should encourage everyone to innovate, and should encourage incremental improvements, which certainly have great value as well. It's easier to see the value of a radical innovation, but also the risk as well.
- derefr 11y ago
  I would argue that everyone wants to be in the "innovation group"—it's where all the challenge is, it's where all the stuff that looks good on their resume is, and it's just plain inherently more interesting subject matter—and that those who end up "exploiting" rather than "exploring" feel like they've lost out because of this. Plus, R&D engineers frequently have less oversight and better pay. The real problem is that the decision-process for who ends up in R&D—and who ends up handling dumb production bugs their whole life—looks more like the military officer/enlisted split than like a single career track. We have extremely talented, extremely experienced engineers who are 20-year "Non-Commissioned Officers", still stuck in the bullpen, while some of the newbies mysteriously end up fluttering away to be Ensigns.
ferentchak 11y ago
I was working with some larger companies that ran internal hackathons to see if they could create smaller product improvements or advantageous changes to internal processes. One of the "prizes" that the teams one was having their product funded and getting to take the time to build it. R&D employees seemed to get a large boost of energy and optimism from trying these events while the company harvested innovation and efficiency.