Recently, I read an article on moods and how they potentially effect our daily results at Knowledge@Wharton. You might need a free subscription to the site to access the article: “Waking Up on the Wrong Side of the Desk: The Effect of Mood on Work Performance.”

The research is interesting, as they investigate how our moods, before we set foot at work, could effect our productivity in the office. The conclusion of the research is as follows:

“Start-of-day positive mood spills over and affects positive employee mood during the day,” … “likewise, start-of-day negative mood spills over and affects negative employee mood during the day,…” “… Last, we show that daily mood at work can influence important work outcomes.”

Though Isaac Newton suggested that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, an action from your environment doesn’t have to result in a specific mood. Yes, maybe the traffic was really horrendous that day. But, don’t we have the choice on how to react? The article reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit featuring “Stuart Smalley” - “I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!”

Granted, I do believe everyone deserves to have a ‘bad mood’ day, if they choose to. But, as the article highlights, it would be worthwhile to ask yourself “if today is a good day to have the bad mood”, before you step onto that path.

You might have heard about the latest windstorm in the greater Seattle area that impacted about a million people by depriving them of their electricity. Well, we were among those impacted, with 65 hours to wait before our power came back on. We lost power before, but nothing like this. The experience clearly highlighted humanity’s lack of technology during emergencies, with plenty of time to think of examples.

During emergencies, our needs are quite basic and mostly about survival: is the power coming on in few hours, days, or weeks, what are the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, where can I get more food, fuel, how do I keep the contents of my freezer from rotting, etc. Though our power company did have a hotline, and we did have phones, the information provided was non-specific, to say the least. It was ultimately updated, changing from a female to a male voice on the recording, but still saying the same thing. Though it sounded sexier, it was just as useless as before.

Today we have technology to keep track of our ‘buddies’ using our cell phones, we can change our cell phone ringer tones to personalize it to our moods, we can Google-map our photograph locations to share with others, or listen to Christmas music from hundreds of stations around the world via the Internet. Yet, somehow we haven’t incorporated these technologies to aid us during our time of need. Is it just due to the capitalist system frightened of the lack of profit, is it the lack of creativity, or the problems associated with our complex infrastructure? Maybe it is all of the above reasons, and more. Regardless of the reasons, here are some thoughts on technologies that could help during emergencies to enable better communication of information, resources, distribution of supplies, etc.:

• Utilizing power grid information, potentially combined with GPS technology, to provide customized information to the callers on where the breaks are in the system relative to their house, and based on the current repair rate, the likely time of resolution;
• Providing information on fuel supplies, instead of letting people drive around trying to find open stations;
• Information on the open grocery stores, including services they provide, such as selling perishables and drinking water;
• General blackout safety information distributed during the emergencies, such as instructions for safe food storage and handling, issues with drinking water, and how not to kill yourself from carbon monoxide poisoning;

The bottom line is that information availability, via phone, TV, Internet, radio, was almost none existent during the blackout resulting from the Seattle windstorm of 2006. We had a radio with fresh batteries, yet updates on system status or do’s/don’ts were not there. Even though this was no Katrina, people did die from running their generators indoors, not to mention many emergency-room visits due to smoke inhalation from charcoal being burned in the kitchen. Next time our family will be more prepared, but can the community learn from this emergency and put technology to use before it’s too late?

Have you ever had one of those moments where all you wanted to do is scream and ask for forgiveness? I had mine last night, after noting that yet another person has a title containing innovation. I felt a sudden fear that my message was lost in a sea of look-alikes, and it is difficult for the rest of you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Don’t get me wrong: studying innovation and technology management is still my love and fascination, and I’ll continue to sweat over it as I have for the past decade. However, I have to stand back and question the current hype of the term, including the use of it in my title: “Innovation and Technology Management”.

If you step back a second, you would think that with so many calling themselves the innovation something or another, our innovation scores and return on our investments should be so much better. Unfortunately that is far from the truth. Take a look at the BusinessWeek data from 2005 on industry innovation’s success rates: based on the article “up to 96% of all new projects fail to meet or beat targets for return on investment”. Fortunately for us innovation experts, it is also difficult to measure the success rates, as there is no one universal definition of success within and between firms. As such, the validity of all available data on the topic can be argued.

So, is innovation really hype? Only if you place the value of innovation on the same level as the downloadable cell phone ringer functionality, or maybe the Atkins diet. Lets face it, men have been inventing and innovating since the wheel. I am a big fan of Peter Drucker, and over a decade ago he published Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Since 1991 “Drucker Innovation Awards” have been given for nonprofit innovations. Given the ideas and challenges of innovation have been around quite a while, then why is the sudden silver bullet-like fad-ness of the topic?

It is certainly plausible to blame the management consultants that ride the tail of innovation, or the CEOs looking for ways to continuously deliver top line growth to ever more demanding shareholders. Either way, in some strange way, I should welcome the increased focus on innovation, as it does generate and circulate ideas, best practices and potentially simple solutions to complex innovation problems. Even so, I’m changing my title on my business card, but keeping the company slogan. After all, innovation is only as good as the value it delivers, and that requires effective innovation management.

As research from IBM and the Boston Consulting Group captures, in today’s competitive environment, CEOs are looking at innovation to bring top line growth. In my recent “Innovation and Profitability” article posted at KiteTail.com, I discussed how different innovation types could contribute to the bottom line of the firm. Granted, there are more innovation types than one can throw a stick at, and the terminology might be different from one to the other, but it does demonstrate the linkage between innovation and profitability. However, there is still the question of how does one measure innovation and innovation’s impact, and does innovation really pay off?

It is difficult to measure the impact of innovation. The challenges stem everywhere from agreeing on common definitions, such as what constitutes a new product, to the fact that it takes on average one year to commercialize an idea while the full life cycle of the innovation is anywhere from two to five years, and that innovation is a system and should be measured as such. As with any given measurement system, having the data and the metrics is not sufficient, there is a need to incorporate how the metrics relate and impact each other. Regardless, a proper measurement system will not only provide the current state, but also highlight the areas that need improvement.

As I mentioned before, innovation is about the implementation of a new idea for the purpose of creating value: value for the firm, and value for the consumer. Given that the innovation is a system, proper measurement of innovation should incorporate every phase in the innovation cycle: from ideation thru development, commercialization and life cycle management, along with supporting systems that enable innovation to be successful: management, people and culture. Without proper support, including management, funding and innovation networks (internal and external partners), many ideas fail to make it to the market. And others that do make it might fail to bring the expected returns on the innovation investment. Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) 2006 Innovation Survey highlights that though companies are strongly committed to innovation, and recognize it as being critical to their success, there is doubt that they are earning sufficient return on their investment. Yet, research shows that effective innovation does pay off, as highlighted in BCG’s innovation research:

Companies are increasing their emphasis on innovation for good reason, it turns out. Innovation, our research shows, translates into superior long-term stock-market performance: the 25 most innovative companies (as defined by our survey respondents) had a median annualized return of 14.3 percent from 1996 through 2005, a full 300 basis points better than that of the S&P Global 1200 median. The driver of that outperformance was these companies’ ability to expand margins at a superior rate without sacrificing growth: innovators increased median profit margins by an annualized 3.4 percentage points per year over the ten-year period, versus 0.4 percent for the median Standard & Poor’s Global 1200 company. And they did this while keeping revenue growth on pace—9 percent per annum—with the index median.

Along the same lines, Booz Allen Hamilton’s “Global Innovation 1000” looks at the impact of R&D on corporate performance, and shares their findings on “high-leverage innovators”:

Analysis of the performance screens revealed that 94 companies within the Global Innovation 1000 – our high leverage innovators – consistently outperformed their peers over the five-year period, while spending less on R&D as a percentage of sales than their industry median.

In summary, though it is difficult to measure innovation, effective innovation does pay off. And this is definitely one area that starting with a few relevant metrics wins over finding the perfect mix: just do it! Continuously monitor and check on your metrics to determine what is working and what is not. With that, here are few thoughts on implementing your own innovation measurement system.

• In determining your metrics, make sure to align them with your innovation strategy. I discussed this briefly in my “Innovation and Profitability” article. Manage your innovations as a portfolio process: know where you are spending across range of initiatives, how your resources are allocated, and using regular portfolio reviews determine if the investment is still aligned with the strategy given the latest market and business conditions. Metrics have a way to influence behavior and norms, so make sure you are walking the talk.
• Focus on all aspects of the innovation cycle from ideation all the way thru post-commercialization. Analyze your innovation cycle effectiveness both on idea generation, but also on the overall process effectiveness: idea selection, resource investment and allocation, cycle time for moving the ideas through the innovation cycle, collaboration with your innovation network (internal and external partnerships), time to market, number of new products launched, number of products that embed the idea, as well as number of ideas killed and where in the innovation cycle.
• Remember, the goal is to measure your innovation effectiveness, so focus on the metrics that matter: investment vs. the return on investment. Potential metrics could include your innovation investment’s impact on the margin (percent gross margin, impact to operating profit, innovation as percent of revenue), post-launch performance of expected vs. actual realized value of your innovation, and return on your patent portfolio.
• Don’t be self-centered: make sure you innovation metrics include measures to compare how well you do against your competitors or your industry.

With that said, don’t go metrics crazy: collecting and managing metrics takes effort, and there is a point of diminishing returns. At the same time too little may not provide the right insight. Though I don’t believe that there is a magic number for all situations, a range of four to eight is a good target. Here are additional articles on the topic of measuring innovation. Good luck!

• “Measuring Innovation 2006”, Boston Consulting Group
• “Measuring Profitable Growth and Innovation”, Accenture
• “Smart Spenders: The Global Innovation 1000”, Booz Allen Hamilton

Reading Moishe Lettvin’s blog on “The Windows Shutdown crapfest” brought back memories of my own war stories on surviving meeting madness during my life in the big corporation.

Here are few tools that worked for my team and me. You can find more about these and other leadership tools from Conversant. These tools helped us improve the overall effectiveness of our meetings and our decision-making process, and I hope you they will help you as well.

•Manage meetings with purpose – Everyone knows that no meeting invite should be sent out without a proper meeting agenda. However, an agenda in itself is not sufficient for conducting a successful meeting. Using the PMO (Purpose, Method and Outcome) framework sets up the proper context and expectations for your meeting.

o Clear purpose brings everyone into alignment as to why the meeting is being called;
o Spelling the outcome sets the proper expectations on what agreement and alignment will be achieved in the meeting;
o Properly stating the method that will be used indicates the how issues at hand will be discussed, who will be presenting what and the process for achieving the outcome;

In many ways, PMO helps you as the meeting owner to ensure you have done your homework on the Why, What, How and Who for conducting an effective meeting.

• Establish clear roles in your decision-making process – It is a common belief that decision by consensus is not an efficient decision making model, yet it is probably the most effective one for achieving alignments. Identifying the key stakeholders for a given issue and establishing clear roles for the decision-making process will improve the overall effectiveness of the process while achieving alignment. The RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consultant, Informed) model can be used for role identification in a given issue.

o Identify one key person that is accountable for the decision. This person should not only be an individual with power, but should also have the responsibility and accountability for the results of the decision when it’s rolled out. If the group cannot reach a decision, this individual also has the power to make the ultimate call;
o Responsible individuals are basically the ones who will roll out the implementation of the decision. As such, they have more at stake on the final outcome.
o The role of the consultants is to ensure that all aspects of the issue are studied and considered objectively prior to making a decision. However, they usually are not as knowledgeable on the integrals of the issue at hand, or have the accountability for actual on-time, on-budget implementation of the decision.
o Finally, the informed group reflects all the individuals that should be notified of the decision, but are not in any way implicated by the outcome.

This role identification should be part of your decision-making process, as it is a good way to ensure right individuals are included, needed questions and alternatives analyzed, and appropriate accountability lines are clearly established. The Matheson and Matheson’s Decision Quality Chain captures the necessary elements required to achieve quality decisions (The Smart Organization: Creating Value Through Strategic R&D).

• Separate facts from opinions – Perhaps this is the hardest aspect of the decision-making process: determining what is fact vs. what is fiction, ie. opinion. However, a good decision requires analysis of the facts, and acknowledging opinions to achieve a common view of the group for gaining alignment and agreement. So, even if the process is slow, start by identifying the common facts that everyone agrees with, and determine how those impact the issue at hand. From there, address the opinions and their relevance to the decision process.

As a departing thought, don’t forget to watch for deja vu. Revisiting decisions and issues that you thought were closed is a common phenomenon, especially in larger firms. If you find yourself experiencing this, go back and review your historical records to ensure the correct stakeholders were included in the decision process. At the end of the day, you want to address the root cause problem and not the symptoms. It’s not only tiresome, but also very unproductive to play the whack-a-mole game.

Wishing you a season full of efficient and effective meetings. ☺