4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI 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.