Good article, in particular I like the use of Open Innovation as a better way to describe the practice of open collaboration. In the past I have used Open Methodology, but have come to notice that there is a tone of implied constraint when responded to in conversation. Innovation implies positive change and open suggests transparency.
I very much agree with the McAfee Research recommendations though I would emphasize the focus on specific goals. Unless there are clear and unambiguous objectives asking people to be openly innovative is like asking them to participate in Social Media; without an end in focus people will dabble and either become distracted or eventually resort back to their workday habits.
Even when specific goals have been set focus is paramount, as scope creep can derail the best intentioned project. Open innovation is exhilarating and can open the floodgates of ideas producing a plethora of innovations. Good management practices are needed to remain on track and ensure that the supernumerary innovations are recorded and reviewed in regular planning cycles.
The reluctance to engage mentioned in the article is commonplace for the following reasons to name but two:
1) Enterprises are still focused on shareholder value and meeting stock market expectations. This forces short termism, that is maximizing profits and efficiency at the expense of long term growth, employee loyalty and most importantly focus on their customers. Open dialogue with employees and customers is almost antithetical. Roger L. Martin's book - "Fixing the Game" articulates the need to focus on the real market, where business interacts with customers, rather than the expectations market where business reacts to investment mechanisms.
2) Hierarchy and the culture of protectionism. All too often openness and collaboration is obstructed by organizational segmentation and the belief that ideas and knowledge are the property or responsibility of anointed groups and individuals. The thought of sharing is anathema because to do so is to dilute the value of the group or individual. Those that are aware of their shortcoming and those that are unaware yet believe in their own infallibility will both resist the call to collaborate, one from fear and the other from arrogance.
Establishing and maintaining the objectives, especially those that are culture changing, requires not just leadership, it needs champions. Champions are individuals who walk the walk, challenge business thinking, break down the walls of resistance and demonstrate that sharing is to everyone's benefit especially the business.
Should the open methodology have a political agenda? Absolutely. But a separate political party would detract from the level of influence needed to educate and persuade current and future business, professional and political leaders on the wisdom and benefits of open practices. As Steve Sites points out a party platform demands a set of policies and stances that could divide and alienate support. The open methodology predicates neither a conservative or liberal tendency as both left and right viewpoints can be accommodated. This might appear advantageous but could also suggest ambivalence, which appears to be anathema to the American voting public.
What is important, however, is that the movement promotes open thought and action in all aspects of life, much in the way this blog does by covering education, health, law as well as government and business. By establishing a party to change the current system you invite resistance and opposition, it is far better to change the system from within, and convince those currently in power that their interests are better served through open methods. It is better still if you can get them to think that they are the authors or initiators of the open way.
Authored Comments
Good article, in particular I like the use of Open Innovation as a better way to describe the practice of open collaboration. In the past I have used Open Methodology, but have come to notice that there is a tone of implied constraint when responded to in conversation. Innovation implies positive change and open suggests transparency.
I very much agree with the McAfee Research recommendations though I would emphasize the focus on specific goals. Unless there are clear and unambiguous objectives asking people to be openly innovative is like asking them to participate in Social Media; without an end in focus people will dabble and either become distracted or eventually resort back to their workday habits.
Even when specific goals have been set focus is paramount, as scope creep can derail the best intentioned project. Open innovation is exhilarating and can open the floodgates of ideas producing a plethora of innovations. Good management practices are needed to remain on track and ensure that the supernumerary innovations are recorded and reviewed in regular planning cycles.
The reluctance to engage mentioned in the article is commonplace for the following reasons to name but two:
1) Enterprises are still focused on shareholder value and meeting stock market expectations. This forces short termism, that is maximizing profits and efficiency at the expense of long term growth, employee loyalty and most importantly focus on their customers. Open dialogue with employees and customers is almost antithetical. Roger L. Martin's book - "Fixing the Game" articulates the need to focus on the real market, where business interacts with customers, rather than the expectations market where business reacts to investment mechanisms.
2) Hierarchy and the culture of protectionism. All too often openness and collaboration is obstructed by organizational segmentation and the belief that ideas and knowledge are the property or responsibility of anointed groups and individuals. The thought of sharing is anathema because to do so is to dilute the value of the group or individual. Those that are aware of their shortcoming and those that are unaware yet believe in their own infallibility will both resist the call to collaborate, one from fear and the other from arrogance.
Establishing and maintaining the objectives, especially those that are culture changing, requires not just leadership, it needs champions. Champions are individuals who walk the walk, challenge business thinking, break down the walls of resistance and demonstrate that sharing is to everyone's benefit especially the business.
Should the open methodology have a political agenda? Absolutely. But a separate political party would detract from the level of influence needed to educate and persuade current and future business, professional and political leaders on the wisdom and benefits of open practices. As Steve Sites points out a party platform demands a set of policies and stances that could divide and alienate support. The open methodology predicates neither a conservative or liberal tendency as both left and right viewpoints can be accommodated. This might appear advantageous but could also suggest ambivalence, which appears to be anathema to the American voting public.
What is important, however, is that the movement promotes open thought and action in all aspects of life, much in the way this blog does by covering education, health, law as well as government and business. By establishing a party to change the current system you invite resistance and opposition, it is far better to change the system from within, and convince those currently in power that their interests are better served through open methods. It is better still if you can get them to think that they are the authors or initiators of the open way.