Bessant John. High Involvement Innovation. Building and Sustaining Competitive Advantages Through Continuous Change
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
60 HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION
• Training in a suite of simple problem finding and solving tools, which teams can quickly u se
to help them in their HII activities. Examples of the tools are fishbone charts, brainstorming
and process mapping
• A team-based approach, where groups of five to six people are drawn from a work
area and trained together to become a HII team. To help them work as a group they
are given some basic training (half day) in tools to help run meetings—agenda setting,
action planning, etc. Initially the facilitators help them run their HII sessions but the teams
gradually take over and become self-managing; most try and meet once a week for about
45 minutes
• An idea management system, which the project team designed to deal with the high
volume of ideas that began to flow once the programme got under way. Essentially the
system is geared to try and provide some response as quickly as possible to anyone who
has made a suggestion. The response may be simple—an acknowledgement and a go
ahead for implementation by the team itself (this accounts for a substantial proportion of
all ideas). The next level is those ideas that need additional help or resources—perhaps
a skilled craftsman or technician. These are acknowledged and put on a priority list for
action when the relevant resource people b ecome available. Finally, there are those major
changes that form the basis of a special action team—a cross-functional group aimed at
tackling a big problem issue. (The ‘idea management system’ (IMS) also has mechanisms
for helping say no quickly and clearly to those ideas that—for whatever reasons—are not
feasible or desirable.)
• A recognition system, which aims to help maintain motivation amongst the staff to contribute
their ideas. Although the group looked at a monetary-based reward system (linked to the
value of improvements suggested), they decided that this would not be the most effective,
not least because it might be divisive and would tend to encourage people only to offer
their ‘big’ ideas. Instead, the system is d esignedtotryandencouragethebehaviourof
suggesting—which it does by providing simple token rewards for any suggestion made
(without attempting to evaluate them). The rewards here vary but include a free cup of
coffee, a coffee mug, a T shirt, etc.; one of the most successful has been a scheme where
the company contributes £1 to a nominated charity for every idea suggested in the HII
teams. For those ideas that have more significant potential there is a bigger reward, the
size and nature of which is decided upon by a panel including the HII project team; this
award is made to the group as a whole. (Examples here include money but also other
things like a meal out for all the team members or a p lace on a training course for each
member of the team.)
• A communication system, where the results of individual projects can be shared with others.
This takes several forms—teams make up ‘storyboards’ about their particular projects,
which they display in their areas; there is an in-house newsletter, etc.
Things are g oing fairly well with the current system—the majority of people are involved,
although there is a spread of enthusiasm from a few fanatics right across to a handful of
people who are really not interested and in some cases actively hostile. Overall, it seems as
though people have got the hang of the basic problem finding and solving approach and the
tools that support it; if you look around the organization you can sometimes see the evidence
in the form of flip charts or pictures on the walls, or people going into a huddle during a
coffee break to try and crack a particular problem issue. There have been one or two big
wins—projects where the team has been able to make a significant impact on a particular
area—and these big hits in terms of improved quality or reduced costs help you to keep the
A MODEL FOR HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION 61
rest of the management team convinced that the (still significant) investment in HII is worth
maintaining.
Although it has gone well and has u ndoubtedly started to change the way people think and
behave around the organization, you have some concerns, which the HII team in different
ways share. The programme isn’t really going anywhere—and in some cases it appears
to be falling back. Whereas, when you started around a year ago, there was a lot of
enthusiasm, things now feel a little stale. In the same way, whereas people used to make
time and give priority to HII sessions, these are increasingly being pushed aside as urgent
work comes a long. The team can do some things to help maintain momentum—for example,
extra training sessions and the introduction on some new tools—but there is a growing sense
that the programme is running out of steam.
This isn’t helped by the fact that many of the projects that teams have been proposing
are put into the queue for specialist action teams—and there simply isn’t enough capacity
amongst the specialists to respond quickly. The growing delay between teams suggesting
things and something getting down about their ideas is setting up a climate where they start
to ask whether it’s worth bothering—no-one does anything with our ideas anyway.
You are also concerned that the benefits, although useful in terms of overall morale, a re not
really producing a big impact on the bottom line. Most of the gains are modest and confined
to a local level—and you are finding it increasingly d ifficult to justify continuing to commit
resources to HII when the matter comes up for discussion amongst your senior colleagues.
Level 3
Your organization has been systematically working at involving staff in problem finding and
solving for some time, and there is a well-developed framework to support such activity.
This includes:
• A HII project team whose task is to monitor and support the continuing development of
employee involvement in p roblem solving
• A common systematic approach to problem finding and solving, which is used by teams
and individuals
• Regular training and updating in the use o f simple tools and techniques for problem finding
and solving
• An idea management system, to manage and progress the various suggestions made from
different groups
• A recognition system which provides feedback and some form of acknowledgement/reward
to individuals and teams contributing suggestions
• A communication system, which captures and shares some of the ideas and experiences
After operation of such a systematic approach for a while, it became clear that there
was a lack of strategic focus to the problem-solving activity and that, as a consequence,
the benefits achieved were confined to a local level. In trying to move on from this and to
break out of a growing sense that the HII activity was running out of steam, the organization
embarked upon a policy deployment p rogramme. This was a major exercise involving linking
the ‘top-down’ strategic planning of the business to the ‘bottom-up’ capability for finding and
solving problems.
In essence, the process involves a top-level set o f clear business objectives and targets,
which provide the focus for the HII activity. These clear targets are then broken down into
project areas and further disaggregated into individual improvement tasks; in o ther words,
the overall strategy is systematically broken down into ‘bite-sized’ chunks, which different HII
62 HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION
teams can work on right across the organization. The process of developing this is interactive
with briefing sessions cascading down through the organization so that everyone knows what
the objectives are and why they are chosen, and so that everyone can explore how they and
their HII activity can make an impact o n these targets.
The result is an extended matrix of potential HII projects, each of which links to a strategic
objective. The effect is to connect up the ‘engine’ of problem finding and solving with the
current strategic needs of the business—for example, for cost reduction, quality improvement,
or time saving.
A k ey component in making this approach work has been the introduction of a ‘measure-
ment culture’. In the early days of HII some teams had used local measures to help guide
their improvement activities, but this was not done on a widespread or systematic basis.
However, in policy deployment it is essential that measurement is introduced throughout the
process—otherwise there is no way of k nowing whether or not the objectives have been
achieved. The types of measurement vary from very simple counting and checking through to
more complex and precise approaches, but the underlying principle is the same—to ensure
that progress is being made and to identify how much further improvement is needed. This
has important implications for the problem of ‘proving’ the value of HII to the bottom line; once
strategic targets are set and progress against them is monitored and measured, it becomes
possible to ‘prove’ the value of investing in HII.
In general the system works very well; clear targets are now set and reviewed regularly and
the HII teams ‘buy in’ to the overall strategy and translate it into particular objectives for their
problem-solving work. Much of the monitoring and measurement work is done by the groups
themselves, and the contribution of individuals to HII activity towards these organization
objectives now forms part of the annual appraisal process. In this way HII has become much
more part of the day-to-day ‘way we do things around here’ than a special initiative.
There are some areas where it could develop further. It still works best within specific areas
and the distribution of enthusiasm and involvement varies across the organization. There are
some cross-functional projects and even some that involve working with people outside the
firm on joint projects—but these are still in their infancy. Increasingly, it seems a s though the
‘big hits’ are likely to come from dealing with p roblems like these, which span different areas
and organizations.
HII also still needs quite a bit of external support and facilitation—helping define and
agree objectives, providing training and development support to teams, steering and guiding
the process. It is also very much about achieving performance improvements through a lot of
small ideas, often resulting from a systematic attack on and elimination of all sorts of waste
and inefficiency. Whilst this is of immense positive value, there may be scope for extending
the process to a more proactive search for radical new ideas.
Level 4
Your organization has been working with HII for some time and has established the basic
process of finding and solving problems as a key part of ‘the way we do things around
here’. HII is not a special initiative but part of the way of life in the organization and groups
often find and solve problems in systematic fashion without consciously thinking about how
they do it. It is normal to go into groups, do some brainstorming, collect some data, follow a
systematic approach—that’s just how we do it.
Whilst there is a high degree of involvement in problem finding and solving activity, it is
linked to the overall strategy of the business. There is a clear process of policy deployment,
where the top-level objectives and targets are shared with everyone in the organization (so
A MODEL FOR HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION 63
people know why certain things have to be improved); these high-level targets are broken
down systematically into projects with which different HII teams can engage. Monitoring and
measuring of progress towards achieving them is handled by the teams themselves and the
results are displayed and shared so everyone has a sense of progress towards meeting the
strategic objectives.
Teams are experienced and the organization continues to invest in regular training and
updating o f skills relevant to HII. For this r eason they are largely self-facilitating, able to take
on loosely defined strategic projects and use a variety of different approaches to carrying
them out. They feel empowered to experiment with different solutions (not all of which work)
and they share the results of their efforts with other teams so that there is little re-inventing of
the wheel and so that groups can avoid falling into the same traps as their colleagues. There
is a sense of top-management support, which extends to empowering the groups to choose
how their solutions will be implemented and often to spending the money to get something
done. There is a high degree of trust—the underlying thinking being that the teams are well
trained in HII, they have a clear sense of the strategic objectives and they will try different
approaches to find a solution, so they do not need a heavy hand on the tiller from outside.
The ‘buy-in’ to the strategy is helped through the reward system, which acknowledges that
if the organization can achieve its (stretching) strategic objectives it must have done so as a
result of the collective efforts of the HII teams. For this reason, there is a simple bonus scheme
based on a profit-share of profits over and above the agreed target levels. This provides a
powerful incentive to the teams themselves.
This approach has worked well and there is a high degree of motivation amongst the
workforce. Labour turnover is low and performance levels are high. There are still areas for
further development, however, particularly between different areas within the organization
and certainly outside in its relationships with others. Problem finding and solving in the
value stream is an important priority. A second area for extending the approach is in the
development of new products and services; at present almost all the HII work has concentrated
on making processes efficient and lean—high quality, f ast and low cost. However, there
is also scope f or using the ideas and techniques—the HII capability—in other areas and
aspects of the business.
Level 5
The organization has been involved in HII for some time and has established systematic
finding and solving problems as a key part o f ‘the way we do things around here’. This
approach is strategy-linked—improvements are made regularly and continuously and they
make a contribution to the various strategic objectives of the organization. There is a clear link
between overall strategy and its deployment down to the various p roblem-solving teams. HII
is also part of individual behaviour—people are often involved in several different activities,
from a personal, through a work-group team to cross-functional and even inter-organizational
teams. The whole ethos is one of change—constantly searching for ways to improve things
and not leaving things as they are unless there is a good reason. The motto could almost be
‘if it ain’t being fixed, it’s broke!’—recognizing that the world outside is constantly moving
on and survival and growth of the organization depend on constant learning and change.
People feel a high degree of empowerment—they are skilled and the organization invests
regularly in training and equipping them with the skills they need to understand, to find and
to solve problems. They are also not afraid to experiment—the organization takes the view
that it is important to make mistakes whilst trying things out and that this is to be encouraged,
64 HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION
not blamed. The only ‘crime’ is to make the same mistake twice, so people are encouraged
to capture and share whatever they learn through experiment.
Knowledge is at the heart of this organization. It is constantly looking for better ways of
doing things, for better ideas in its products and services, and it has people skilled and
experienced in the tools and techniques of systematic problem finding and solving to support
this. However, it also ensures that the lessons of this constant learning process are captured
and shared for others to use—accomplishing this through regular meetings and discussion,
documentation, displays, newsletters and other communications media, etc.
Part of the looking process involves getting access to new sources of information and seeing
things from new perspectives. So the organization encourages job rotation and secondment,
brings in people with deliberately different backgrounds to provide fresh perspectives, sends
people out to visit and talk with customers, supplier, competitors, etc. It is very open to new
sources of ideas and knowledge and to ways of seeing the existing patterns in different ways.
Not only is systematic and strategically aligned HII a way of life, it pervades every aspect
of the organization. Involvement levels are very high and the approach is used within work
areas, between different areas and out into the supply and distribution chain. The concept
of value streams and the strategic improvement of these rather than local problem solving
is central.
4.4 Developing High-Involvement Practice
Having established the idea of firms developing their practice of high involvement
to the different levels of capability, we needed to understand what was being
developed in more detail. Our view was that it was the overall pattern of behaviour
in the organization—the collection of ‘routines’ that made up the culture—‘the
way we do things around here’ (see Chapter 3). From the research companies it
became clear that specific behaviours cluster together and reinforce each other to
create an ability within the organization to do something important in making
high-involvement innovation happen—for example, to link it to the overall
strategy of the business or to work creatively across organizational boundaries.
Figure 4.2 shows the model in diagrammatic form—essentially we can consider
the behaviours as streams that flow into tributaries and eventually into a major
river. It is possible to have water flowing in the river even if some of the streams
are blocked or dried up, but it is obviously valuable to try and identify where this
is happening and to do something about it.
Key behaviour 1
HII capability
HII ability 1 HII ability 2 HII ability 3 to 8
Key behaviour 2 Key behaviour 3, etc.
FIGURE 4.2 Behavioural model of HII capability.
A MODEL FOR HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION 65
TABLE 4.1 Key behaviour abilities for levels in the model.
Key behaviour abilitie s Level in the model
12345
Cluster 1 Indicators of typical behaviour patterns and
consequences at each of the different levels
‘Understanding
high-involvement
innovation’
Clusters 2 to 8 ‘Getting
the habit’, ‘focusing’
etc. (see Appendix)
As above
The five levels of capability development relate to the extent to which these many
behaviours are developed and have become routines within the organization. So
the model becomes like that shown in Table 4.1.
4.5 Components of High-Involvement Capability
The last piece of the puzzle was to try and identify which particular behaviours
and clusters of behaviours were important in determining these abilities and
contributing to overall high-involvement capability. In trying to establish these
we drew on a number of sources:
• A literature survey of relevant work in the field of innovation research and
practice, which looked at the behaviours associated with innovation and the
organizational structures and processes that supported them. The focus here
tended to be on ‘traditional’ types of innovation specialists
• A literature survey of attempts to establish more extensive involvement in the
innovation process—for example, through total quality programmes that aimed
to involve people at least at the level of continuous improvement—‘do what we
do better’ innovation
• Analysis of case studies within the CIRCA research project, and testing via
feedback with companies within the network (see Box 4.1 for details)
• Validation of the emerging model via parallel research work in the EuroCInet
programme across several European countries and Australia (described in detail
in Chapter 2 but, for further information, see Boer et al. 1999)
TABLE 4.2 Key abilities in developing high-involvement innovation capability.
Ability Constituent behaviours
‘Understanding’—the ability
to articulate the basic values
of continuous
high-involvement
innovation (HII)
People demonstrate a shared belief in the value of small steps and
that everyone can contribute, by themselves being actively
involved in making and recognizing improvements
When something goes wrong the natural reaction of people at all
levels is to look for reasons why etc., rather than to blame
individual(s)
(continued overleaf )
66 HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
Ability Constituent behaviours
‘Getting the HII habit’—the
ability to generate sustained
involvement in HII
People make use of some formal problem finding and solving cycle
People use appropriate tools and techniques to support HII
People use measurement to guide the improvement process
People (as individuals and/or groups) initiate and carry through
HII activities—they participate in the process
Closing the loop—ideas are responded to in a clearly defined and
timely fashion—either implemented or otherwise dealt with
‘Focusing HII’—the ability to
link HII activities to the
strategic goals of the
company
Individuals and groups use the organization’s strategic goals and
objectives to focus and prioritize improvements
Everyone understands (i.e. is able to explain) what the company’s
or department’s strategy, goals and objectives are
Individuals and groups (e.g. departments, HII teams) assess their
proposed changes (before embarking on initial investigation and
before implementing a solution) against departmental or
company objectives to ensure that they are consistent with them
Individuals and groups monitor/measure the results of their
improvement activity and the impact it has on strategic or
departmental objectives
HII activities are an integral part of the work of individuals or
groups, not a parallel activity
‘Leading HII’—the ability to
lead, direct and support the
creation and sustaining of
HII behaviours
Managers support the HII process through allocation of time,
money, space and other resources
Managers recognize in formal (but not necessarily financial) ways
the contribution of employees to HII
Managers lead by example, becoming actively involved in design
and implementation of HII
Managers support experiment by not punishing mistakes but by
encouraging learning from them
‘Aligning HII’—the ability to
create consistency between
HII values and behaviour
and the organizational
context (structures,
procedures, etc.)
Ongoing assessment ensures that the organization’s structure and
infrastructure and the HII system consistently support and
reinforce each other
The individual/group responsible for designing the HII system
designs it to fit within the current structure and infrastructure
Individuals with responsibility for particular company
processes/systems hold ongoing reviews to assess whether these
processes/systems and the HII system remain compatible
People with responsibility for the HII system ensure that, when a
major organizational change is planned, its potential impact on
the HII system is assessed and adjustments are made as necessary
‘Shared
problem-solving’—the
ability to move HII activity
across organizational
boundaries
People co-operate across internal divisions (e.g. cross-functional
groups) in HII as well as working in their own areas. This is also
extended to inter-organizational relationships
People understand and share a holistic view (process
understanding and ownership)
People are oriented towards internal and external customers in their
HII activity
Specific HII projects with outside agencies—customers, suppliers,
etc.—are taking place
Relevant HII activities involve representatives from different
organizational levels
A MODEL FOR HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION 67
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
Ability Constituent behaviours
‘Continuous improvement of
continuous
improvement’—the ability
to strategically manage the
development of HII
The HII system is continually monitored and developed; a
designated individual or group monitors the HII system and
measures the incidence (i.e. frequency and location) of HII
activity and the results of HII activity
There is a cyclical planning process whereby the HII system is
regularly reviewed and, if necessary, amended (single-loop
learning)
There is periodic review of the HII system in relation to the
organization as a whole, which may lead to a major regeneration
(double-loop learning)
Senior management make available sufficient resources (time,
money, personnel) to support the ongoing development of the
HII system
‘The learning
organization’—generating
the ability to enable
learning to take place and
be captured at all levels
People learn from their experiences, both positive and negative
Individuals seek out opportunities for learning/personal
development (e.g. actively experiment, set their own learning
objectives)
Individuals and groups at all levels share (make available) their
learning from all work experiences
The organization articulates and consolidates (captures and shares)
the learning of individuals and groups
Managers accept and, where necessary, act on all the learning that
takes place
People and teams ensure that their learning is captured by making
use of the mechanisms provided for doing so
Designated individual(s) use organizational mechanisms to deploy
the learning that is captured across the organization
Table 4.2 summarizes the findings from these different studies, from which it
can be seen that we concentrated on eight key abilities or clusters of behaviour
as providing the underpinning for high-involvement innovation capability. The
Appendix provides a more detailed description of the key behaviours in each case.
4.6 Towards a ‘Reference Model’ for High-Involvement
Innovation
These eight clusters of behaviours—key abilities—are things that we can see
high-performing innovation organizations doing extensively. Importantly, they
have found ways to spread these behaviours beyond the ‘traditional’ innovation
specialist groups to less familiar areas and to people who are less experienced
or who have previously not been involved in innovative activities. Our case-
study research indicated that different firms had developed these abilities to a
greater or lesser extent, and this development of practice had some bearing on the
likely performance improvements that they could expect. From this experience
it seems that the development of high-involvement innovation is essentially an
evolutionary process involving gradual learning and embedding of an increasing
number of behavioural abilities.
68 HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION
Using these, we could turn the descriptive model of Table 4.1 into a staged devel-
opment model, which identifies particular levels of evolution of these behaviours
and tries to connect them with likely performance impacts. These levels match
up with the archetypes described earlier and which are illustrated in Figure 4.1.
Table 4.3 describes their performance and practice characteristics in outline.
TABLE 4.3 An explanation of the different levels in the reference model.
Level Performance Practice
0 = No high-involvement
innovation activity
No impact from high-involvement
innovation
Problem solving random
No formal efforts or structure
Occasional bursts punctuated by
inactivity and non-participation
Dominant mode of problem
solving is by specialists
Short-term benefits
No strategic impact
1 = Trying out the ideas Minimal and local effects only
Some improvements in morale
and motivation
High-involvement innovation
happensasaresultof
learning-curve effects associated
with a particular new product or
process—and then fades out
again. Or it results from a
short-term input—a training
intervention, for example—and
leads to a small impact around
those immediately concerned
with it. These effects are often
short-lived and very localized
2 = Structured and
systematic
high-involvement
innovation
Local-level effects
Measurable high-involvement
innovation activity, e.g.
number of participants,
ideas produced, etc.
Formal attempts to create and
sustain high-involvement
innovation
Use of a formal problem-solving
process
Measurable performance effects
confined to projects
Little or no ‘bottom line’ impact
Use of participation
Training in basic high-involvement
innovation tools
Structured idea management
system
Recognition system, often parallel
system to operations
Can extend to cross-functional
work but on an ad hoc basis
3 = Strategic
high-involvement
innovation
Policy deployment links local
and project-level activity to
broader strategic goals
All of the above, plus formal
deployment of strategic goals
Monitoring and measurement
drives improvement on these
issues, which can be measured
in terms of impact on ‘bottom
line’—for example, cost
reductions, quality
improvements, time savings, etc.
Monitoring and measurement of
high-involvement innovation
against these goals
In-line system
A MODEL FOR HIGH-INVOLVEMENT INNOVATION 69
TABLE 4.3 (continued)
Level Performance Practice
4 = Autonomous
innovation
Strategic benefits, including those
from discontinuous, major
innovations, as well as
incremental problem solving
All of the above, plus responsibility
for mechanisms, timing, etc.,
devolved to problem-solving
unit
High levels of experimentation
5 = Strong
high-involvement
innovation capability
Strategic innovation
Ability to deploy competence
base to competitive
advantage
High-involvement innovation as
the dominant way of life
Automatic capture and sharing of
learning
Everyone actively involved in
innovation process
Incremental and radical innovation
Organizations move through the levels as the key behaviours (identified in
Table 4.2) are adopted and reinforced, and as the form a behaviour takes becomes
more highly evolved. For example, at Levels 2 and 3 staff may work effectively
at solving problems allocated to them by management, but at Level 4 employees
would take responsibility for discovering and prioritizing, as well as solving, prob-
lems for themselves. The model is evolutionary, as opposed to additive—all the
key behaviours would be present at Level 2, although in a relatively imma-
ture form; for a firm to advance to a higher level the behaviours need to
evolve further.
Classifying evolution of high-involvement innovation in these terms can
help firms understand where they stand in relation to other companies and
how they can develop a plan to expand their own abilities. But it is impor-
tant to recognize that these represent generic ‘archetypes’. Each organization’s
experience will be specific to the organization, but their development of a high-
involvement innovation capability will have to pass through these common stages.
Progression from one stage to the next involves both maturing of particular rou-
tines (and their constituent behaviours) and also adding new routines to the
core set.
The idea of increasingly skilful practice of the basic HII behaviours, and the
notion that improved results (in terms of business benefits) follow from higher
levels of such practice, has much in common with other models for organizational
development such as the Capability Maturity model of software development or
the Business Excellence model (Paulk and Curtis 1993; Povey 1996).
BOX 4.3 Try it yourself.
The idea behind innovation auditing and the use of reference models is to provide firms
with the opportunity to reflect in a structured way on what they have achieved and
where they might go next. The model described here has been used in a variety of
cases to help firms in this fashion, and to provide feedback and guidance for further
development.