dfuhriman
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
What I add to this aspect of innovation is a differentiation between standardizable work and original work. OP's approach to creating systems are different for each.
The other thing I define is the roles in innovation; creatives, systematics, and bureaucrats. The problem I see with OP is that creatives usually cannot implement the systemization that is required for the "franchise prototypes", let alone manage the system.
You need to make an important hire- you are missing a systematic. See, creatives like you are awesome at solving problems but hate to have structure and order because it doesn't allow you 100% freedom. But, as a result, you just have 100% creativity/problem solving- which is draining. The worst thing is, you can't even create the order you need to manage these things.
Systematics create structure and order in dynamic environments.
I wrote a book about this and other problems with innovation and how to solve them. It will be published later this year, but happy to provide an advanced copy to help work through seeing the problems you are facing.
The systematics in your business are meant to free you from the ongoing crap that you are experiencing.
Edit: my first comment above was a tl;dr - but I suggest reading the whole article.
Premise is we can measure effects of decisions and define morality on what happens. If outcomes are good: moral. If outcomes are bad: immoral.
This is also good advice and a good book.
What I add to this aspect of innovation is a differentiation between standardizable work and original work. OP's approach to creating systems are different for each.
The other thing I define is the roles in innovation; creatives, systematics, and bureaucrats. The problem I see with OP is that creatives usually cannot implement the systemization that is required for the "franchise prototypes", let alone manage the system.