23/27 Digression sur quelques paradoxes en innovation – Comment trouver la bonne idée ? – Conférence au ADI-ISEIG

L’innovation sans paradoxes n’existe pas

Une chose est certaine en innovation: si vous craignez les paradoxes, vous n’innoverez jamais. Innover est une alternance entre réflexion et action. Mieux vous arrivez à gérer et équilibrer ces arrêts et ces mouvements, mieux vous innoverez. Et avec plus de plaisir.

1. Paradoxe des ressources pour l’innovation :
Si je n’alloue pas assez de ressources, cela bloque le processus de l’innovation. Si j’en donne trop, cela déborde et le produit innové devient trop parfait et il risque de perdre le contact avec la réalité et les besoins réels des clients.

2. Paradoxe de l’innovateur et le bon moment pour innover :

Microsoft and the Innovator’s Paradox
By Scott Anthony, June 24, 2010

It’s The Innovator’s Paradox: When you don’t need the growth, you act in ways that lead to you not getting the growth you will need. And when you do need the growth, you can’t act in ways that deliver it.

3. Paradoxe de Jevons sur l’innovation technologique :

Technological vs. Social Innovation and the Efficiency Paradox
By Nick Piedmonte, Jun 9, 2010

The parallels between Jevons’ Paradox and the modern “resource efficiency” paradigm are striking.  Conventional logic suggests that technological innovation will improve the tools and methodologies mankind puts to use in adapting to his changing world.  As such innovations on products and processes improve efficiencies, demands on input capitals will be reduced below replenishment rates; sustainable by definition.  But Jevons’ Paradox makes deeper system connections between technological innovation and growth; it asks us to quit ignoring historical examples of innovation-driven efficiencies as a precursor to greater, not reduced, resource consumption. Although counterintuitive, when efficiencies increase, resource consumption increases almost invariably.

4. Paradoxe de la diversité comme source d’innovation :
Télécharger le pdf ici : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8691.00337.x/pdf

The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity and Innovation
By Nigel Bassett-Jones, 2005 (Online ISSN: 1467-8691)

This conceptual and discursive paper argues that diversity is a recognizable source of creativity and innovation that can provide a basis for competitive advantage. On the other hand, diversity is also a cause of misunderstanding, suspicion and conflict in the workplace that can result in absenteeism, poor quality, low morale and loss of competitiveness. Firms seeking competitive advantage therefore face a paradoxical situation. If they embrace diversity, they risk workplace conflict, and if they avoid diversity, they risk loss of competitiveness. The advantages and disadvantages associated with workforce diversity put organizations in a position of managing a paradoxical situation.

Concluding Remarks
In the context of this paper, diversity management is defined as the aggregate effect of HRM sub-systems, including recruitment, reward, performance appraisal, employee development and individual managerial behaviours in delivering competitive advantage through leadership and team work. The combustible cocktail of creative tension that is inherent in diverse organizational contexts must be contained within a multilayered vessel.

The outer layer must be composed of carefully crafted HRM sub-systems that are both vertically integrated with the business objectives and horizontally integrated one with another (Bamburger & Meshoulam, 2000).

The inner layer consists of effective leadership, which can only be provided by suitably trained managers. They need to understand the challenges of diversity management, and to have the emotional intelligence and commitment necessary to build a personal relationship with each individual, or group/team member.

In support of the view that the existence of diversity in a firm can lead to competitive advantage, the paper considered questions such as ‘What is meant by diversity? ‘How is it managed, especially from an HRM point of view?’ ‘What is its relationship with creativity and innovation?’

It has been argued that embracing diversity management is a risky business. Organizations that embrace high-commitment HRM  strategies do so because the systems and processes through which they add value are too complex for managers to control directly  through supervision. Instead, they adopt an output orientation. This approach demands that they delegate authority to individuals and
teams to make operational decisions. Organizations that adopt an output orientation need innovation and continuous improvement in
both products and processes to support a strategy for delivering high-perceived value to the customer. Diversity facilitates the process  when managed well.

5. Paradoxe du choix transposé à l’idéation :
Trop d’idées peuvent bloquer l’innovation. Ne pas en avoir assez aussi.

The Paradox of Choice – Why More Is Less is a 2004 book by Barry Schwartz. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers. This same issue was first proposed by José Ortega y Gasset in Chapter 4 of his book “The Revolt of the Masses“.

Lien vers le livre : The Paradox of Choice- Why More Is Less – Barry Schwartz

6. Paradoxe que l’attente de résultats empèche les résultats :
L’équipe d’innovation qui est obligée de se soumettre aux lois bureaucratiques et aux résultats chiffrés arrête d’être innovante.

The innovation paradox
By Jeffrey Phillips Raleigh, October 13, 2008

I heard an executive recently in an organization we’ve been working with say that the more they try to fit innovation into the expectations and organizational issues of their organization, the more difficult it becomes to do any innovation. Whereas before, when innovation was treated as a pilot program with little oversight or bureaucratic attention, the innovations seemed to flow rather regularly. If you’ve ever worked in a large organization, this should not be a surprise to you, yet it is a constant source of frustration for many would-be innovators.

The more you team focuses on innovation, the less likely your team is to be successful – unless you can either create an artificial environment for innovation – think a greenhouse or “bubble” where the regular rules don’t apply – or you can change your management culture and bureaucracy to embrace the processes, decision methods and risk tolerances of innovative firms. At that point the bubble is not necessary. As a management team, kicking off an innovation project or program without the “bubble” in a traditional, conservative, risk averse organization is usually a recipe for failure.

The problem with executive sponsorship is that often it only travels one level. Even though the executives are advocating innovation, people still need budgets and resources for innovation and the existing teams have specific targets to achieve. Unless the executive team gets involved and changes the way people work on a day to day basis, and encourages risk taking, all the executive sponsorship is just a communication strategy.

To innovate, you’ve got to do things differently. This includes how you generate ideas and how you manage the ideas, as well as the way your innovation team works within the existing corporate framework. If your innovation team is forced to work within a culture and process that is not innovative, then your innovation team will not be innovative either.

7. Paradoxe qui dit que seulement celui qui rate est capable d’innover :

Whoever Makes the Most Mistakes Wins: The Paradox of Innovation by Richard Farson, Ralph Keyes, 2002

Success in today’s business economy demands nonstop innovation. But fancy buzzwords, facile lip service, and simplistic formulas are not the answer. Only an entirely new mindset — a new attitude toward success and failure — can transform managers’ thinking, according to Richard Farson, author of the bestseller Management of the Absurd, and Ralph Keyes, author of the pathbreaking Chancing It: Why We Take Risks, in this provocative new work.

According to Farson and Keyes, the key to this new attitude lies in taking risks. In a rapidly changing economy, managers will confront at least as much failure as success. Does that mean they’ll have failed? Only by their grandfathers’ definition of failure. Both success and failure are steps toward achievement, say the authors. After all, Coca-Cola’s renaissance grew directly out of its New Coke debacle, and severe financial distress forced IBM to completely reinvent itself.

In a concluding section Farson and Keyes suggest that we follow the lead of great coaches such as John Wooden and Phil Jackson and de-emphasize winning. Paradoxically, they say, this could be the best way to win. They call this approach “Samurai Success” after the Japanese warriors who focused their attention on full participation in a contest rather than on its outcome. The less we chase success and run from failure, the authors conclude, the more likely we are to genuinely succeed.

Prochain billet: 24/27 Processus

Cliquez le lien pour lire le premier billet 1/27 : diaporama et plan de présentation.
Vous pouvez télécharger la présentation sur SlideShare

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

Comments are closed.