Business according to Mr. Google

Here's a decent video interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. Not sure there are any big ah-has...which is alright.

His comment on the Longtail...that the internet makes the head even more important isn't new.... but it is worth keeping in mind.

Also, as a management consultant and observer of many different organization cultures, Schmidt's comments on management make me smile. First, that you need a leader to enforce deadlines in the group - "otherwise you have university". Second, that you need dissent - "otherwise you have a king". Simple, good insight.

Here's the link.

Innovation Confusion

Innovation has been coming up more in the strategy work I'm doing lately....as in, "this organization needs to be more innovative."

Unfortunately, the term innovation doesn't mean much to me.

Clearly it's important. I wouldn't be listening to my Ipod right now if Apple weren't a modern master at innovation.

Fortune's March 17 issue has a couple of articles on Apple. Apple's approach to innovation seems arrogant but effective - don't ask the consumer, just figure out what bugs us (Apple), eg, the cell phone, and build something better.

Compare that approach to Procter & Gamble, also covered in the same issue where 1) "we put the consumer at the center of everything we do", and 2) "we started thinking about innovation in new ways - we started from the premise that it's possible to run an innovation program in much the same way we run a factory".

So, the path is clear. There is no path.

Here are some thoughts for those as confused as I am about the innovation conversation:

> those with a strong desire to be more innovative probably need to clearly define why. What is the goal? The output? Is it a new product? A new process? A new way of managing that leads to more all round creativity?

> innovation is a strategy; is it a better strategy than some other way of achieving the same goal? For example, is innovation a better strategy than training everyone in the organization how to do their jobs better?

> if innovation is the right strategy, what is the plan? Who is in charge? What are the goals? Time frames? Process? Budgets?

For me, this is where the innovation conversation breaks down. In reality. I don't work for Apple or P&G. But the organizations I know, don't have an innovation plan. They haven't allocated budgets. No one is accountable for leading innovation.

Innovation will never happen in these organizations.

Right?

Wrong. I think.

Every organization I'm engaged with is developing either a new product or new approaches to doing whatever it is they do. They're growing and getting better at what they do.

Yes, some have significant challenges that require new and creative solutions. Maybe that requires a focus on innovation. Maybe.

What I am sure about is that all of them are making significant progress addressing what I would consider the basics of success in their business: better definition of corporate priorities and more focus on them; better, more capable managers who can mentor and lead teams; clearer measures and more effective processes for ensuring accountability.

As a result of progressing on these basics are these organization more innovative? Yeah, I think so.

Do they need to put more focus on innovation? No. At least that's not what I'm telling them.

More to come.

Guy Kawasaki - Mission vs. Mantra

Keynote speaker at the web publishing conference last week was ex-Apple guy, VC, tech and motivational guru Guy Kawasaki. Living up to the hype, he delivered an interesting, lively, thought provoking and somewhat self-depracating address that was fun to listen to. I'm sure it's a speech he's delivered a hundred - or more - times before.

One of Kawasaki's key points of 10 things successful organizations must do is develop a 'mantra'. By mantra, Kawasaki actually means mission and his real point was to take a whack at all the really crappy mission statments that are out there.

Like Kawasaki, poor mission statements have always worried me. They're a waste of time to develop, stick up in the lobby and print onto business cards.

Crappy missions are lousy because they don't mean anything. Kawasaki pointed out how easy it is to get a crappy mission - just go to the Dilbert Mission Generator - here.

Here's a beaut that I just picked up: The customer can count on us to synergistically leverage other's performance based opportunities such that we may continue to assertively administrate market-driven information

Good missions actually have meaning, and if you ask the delivery guy or the receptionist there's at least a 50/50 chance they get it. From Kawasaki's blog, here are some missions with meaning:

Federal Express: “Peace of mind”
Nike: “Authentic athletic performance”
Target: “Democratize design”
Mary Kay “Enriching women’s lives”


Armed with a good mission, I'm a strong believer that organization's are in good shape to keep on the right track. As the post above shows, I believe that fundamental evaluation of corporate performance begins with questioning: "how well are we doing what we say we do?". When the answer is 'we're not actually clear what it is we do' - then improving performance is a snap!