The Eye For Innovation

Leading Innovation - the Fifth Principle

In these postings, so far I have talked about four basic beliefs or “principles” that are key to effective executive management and leadership:  reward, knowing and believing why you’re in the game; development of a management style based on your personal strengths and weaknesses; understanding the true nature of the executive challenge; understanding and acting in accordance with the multi-faceted responsibility of executive leadership.

Style, challenge, and responsibility concerns you in the context of your environment, your shareholders, your customers, your employees and your community.  This fifth principle, as did the first principle, centers on just you and the personal resources you bring to the leadership task.  That task is physically, emotionally and mentally demanding.  Poor husbandry of those personal resources will ultimately result in failure.

Timeframes in leadership tend to be extended.  Even in today’s hyper-kinetic business environments, the results of missed opportunity due to lack of energy and vigorous thought are seldom immediately apparent.  A true sense of urgency is not possible for people who are debilitated, mentally dull or emotionally unstable.

Above all the executive task of strong leadership requires broad perspective and sound judgment.  Perspective is the key ingredient of sound judgment.  How do we get perspective?  From experiencing life.  So broad perspective demands experiences, as many experiences as you can cram into a day.  There are no shortcuts.  Reading is, however, a shortcut of sorts.  It is simply a way to share the experiences of others and is highly leveraged in this crucial matter of gaining perspective.  Even here, however, there is a caveat:  always try to learn from what you read, but don’t necessarily believe what you read.

In today’s world there is another powerful potential to gaining insight and perspective.  That is the internet, and in particular the use of computer simulation and communication via the internet.  Computer simulation is well-established as a means to give airplane pilots experience in a wide variety of conditions.  And yet management simulation is shallow at best and a waste of time and money at worst.  But there is hope.  One small ray of hope was described in Philip Dvorak’s “Theory and Practice” article in the 3/31/2008 Wall Street Journal.  The article was headlined:  “Simulation Shows What it is Like to be the Boss.”  It describes a management simulation exercise developed by BTS Group AB of Sweden for NetApp, Inc., a $3 billion company in the data management world.

What BTS did is customize a typical management game exercise using data and information gained from an in depth analysis of Net App itself.

Management games are fairly standard in management training such as MBA programs.  Even so the time-cost vs. perspective gained from such exercises is questionable.  Also, so-called customized executive education has grown rapidly in popularity in recent years (“customized” in the sense of a particular company for executives of that company).  BTS Group’s innovation is to combine those two things.  Net App seems to be pleased with the result.  Tom Georgens, Net App COO, is quoted in the Journal article as being “initially skeptical but changed his mind after seeing managers’ enthusiasm as they traded anecdotes from work to help solve problems in the simulation.” 

There is a long way yet to go.  I’ll know we are getting closer when someone uses simulation to improve the performance review process which is notoriously bad and often counter-productive.  Performance reviews remind me of a neophyte golfer believing that all that is required to break par on his first round is to have the latest in club technology and hit one bucket of balls on the practice tee.  Management simulations in their current primitive state are at about that level.  But perhaps NetApp and BTS have taken one small step forward.

Cardiologic

It’s always stimulating to be with budding entrepreneurs, and once again I had the opportunity to be with a team of engineers at Duke University who are addressing yet another healthcare problem of the developing world.  The team members are graduate engineering students at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke.  The team leader is Shawn Campbell, (email  -- shawncampbell4@gmail.com). 

Shawn and his team did some research and discovered that in spite of all the high profile killers, such as HIV, that the primary cause of death stems from heart related issues and that monitoring devices are very scarce, not surprisingly because of costs.  So they decided to do something about that.  The result is the SmartRate Monitor about which you can read more in the enclosed excerpt.  The target is $30.  Here’s wishing Shawn and Cardiologic a rapid growth rate in the quest to better monitor heart rates!

Click on this image:

Leading Innovation - the Fourth Principle - Responsibility

For the leader in business this fourth principle  -  Responsibility  -  is in practice quite complex.  But all too often this principle is simply taken to mean that the executive leader, and management generally, has but one responsibility (frequently termed as one purpose) and that is to create shareholder value.  The debate then devolves around reconciling that responsibility with the interests of employees, customers and communities.

When it comes to leading innovation and in particular realizing the economic value of innovation, all these things come together in a very focused way.  Innovation means finding a way to meet some need in a novel way.  So the leader whose task it is not only to either personally fashion that solution or to nurture the team that will do so, is by the very nature of the process focused on the people whose need will be better served (the “customer”) and the team that will make it happen (the “employees”).  The leader is by definition an entrepreneur and the reward of successful entrepreneurship is economic return.  The remaining responsibility, that to the community, is a matter of assuring that the innovation is used ethically and is “resource friendly,” e.g. environmentally acceptable .  So this fourth principle is the most natural one of all for the leader of innovation.  That does not mean it is easy.

What’s interesting is why this straightforward proposition becomes so warped and entangled when applied to large or mature enterprises.  At the root of that problem is the failure to understand the difference between creating value and realizing value.  At the innovating and entrepreneurial stage of things these two concepts are fused into one and it is a fact of economic existence that one must “create” value (wealth) before one can “realize” value (wealth).

With larger and more mature enterprises the two concepts diverge.  “Creating value” or “creating wealth” means building competitively advantaged businesses and, over time, generate superior financial performance.  Creating wealth is a relatively long-term process.  “Realizing wealth” means to rearrange, or broker a portfolio of businesses or properties so that the underlying values become more immediately evident.  In the case of publicly-owned companies, this leads to a higher stock price.  Realizing wealth is a relatively short-term process.

Clearly a business and its managers have the responsibility to both create wealth and realize wealth for its stockholders.  And I assure you that while realizing wealth primarily involves analysis and paper, creating wealth is much tougher and is impossible, as the entrepreneur instinctively knows, without an intense focus on customers and employees.  Furthermore social change can just as surely threaten business as can technological change or change in its financial health.  Remember Strategic Space!

The challenge to the manager is to correctly sense and appraise the environment and its changes and establish strategies to both create wealth and realize wealth.  Without exception, change will present market opportunity.  The degree of health of the organization in its multiple dimensions  -  stockholders, employees, customer base and community relations  -  determines its ability to grasp those opportunities.

Leading Innovation - The Third Principle - “Challenge” (cont’d-3)

            Awareness
            Intense Motivation
            Highly Skilled People
            A Supportive Infrastructure

Infrastructure is the framework within which people work.  Infrastructure is the framework that an enterprise establishes to carry out its task of meeting a need in a competitively superior way.  That framework comprises values, human resource polices including compensation and benefits, and governance.  Of these “values” are probably most fundamental.  Human resource policies are a direct derivative of those values and governance is the guiding force that determines how values are translated into day-to-day action.

Human resource policies, compensation and benefits are the subject of much research, expatriation (and consultant income), and have an infinity of variations.  But the root of effective HR policy is based on one value:  a belief in the individual, the concept of individual accountability, individual innovation and a collective concern for individual well-being.  Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman summed this up the other day with these straightforward words:  “We can debate policies and issues, but what counts is what we do for the individuals who are our constituency.”

What about governance?  Governance is an increasingly hot topic in this first decade of the 21st century.  This has been heightened by flagrant examples of corporate malfeasance and fraud.  And to add fuel to the fire, executive compensation seems to be out of control.  This naturally has led to a focus on the oversight aspect of governance to the extent that “governance” has become almost synonymous with “oversight” with preventing corporate misbehavior.

It is important, however, that in all this sound on fury we remember the most basic function of governance and that is to assure the continuing ability of the enterprise to fulfill its role to meet economic need.  Careful monitoring is clearly necessary to assure that those needs are being met in a transparently ethical manner.  However, that is only a necessary governance function.  It is by no means sufficient to the task of assuring long term corporate and/or stockholder success.  Only governance that results in constant and continuing innovation can possibly assure that the enterprise, be it individual, company or nation, meets the challenge of meeting the needs of the people  -  customers or citizens.  And only by doing so does a company continue to earn the right to exist.

It is the governing  body, the company’s board of directors, that sets the policy and allocates resources to that end.  In my book The Eye for Innovation I discuss this at some length. 

I welcome any comments and examples from you, the readers of this note, as to what you think is working well in the governance arena to help assure the innovation health of companies.

Leading Innovation - The Third Principle - “Challenge” (cont’d-2)

            Awareness
            Intense Motivation
            Highly Skilled People
            A Supportive Infrastructure

Skills  -  whether in basketball or business it is obvious that winners attract winners.  So recruiting of highly skilled people is clearly easier for teams that have a consistent record of winning.  But it is not that simple.  In pro sports there is a laudable attempt to level the playing field by the order of the annual draft.  Even so as time goes by teams with the right track record tend to come out on top.  Still win – loss records and  championships are not enough to ensure a “dynasty.”  Coaches do matter, and it is there to see in the performance of coaches such as Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Lute Olson, Bob Knight and other top flight colleagues.

The difference is the dedication of coaches (and leaders) to maximize the performance of each individual.  I talked about that with Curt Giles an outstanding member of the fabulous 1980 USA Olympic hockey team and coach of the Edina, Minnesota’s hockey team  --  a perennial powerhouse:  “Coach, what is the hardest thing you have to teach,” I asked.  “Consistency,” he replied.  “Consistency comes from an attitude and a willingness to work hard.”  Practice.

And just so it is with innovation.  You learn innovation from practice.  You may draw inspiration from talks and charts, but you learn by doing.  Not many business leaders or business organizations provide the opportunity for, much less the insistence on, practicing innovation.

Innovators, like athletes, have varying degrees of innate skills at finding ways to meet new challenges, to find novel solutions to the situations they face.  And that skill improves with each success they have at solving problems before them, at meeting challenges and seeing the possibilities of opportunities that arise.

Some of that is luck.  I am a great believer in luck.  But luck seems to come most often in the path of those who practice, practice, practice.  The task of the leader is to give people, each individual, the opportunity, and to be adamant in their pursuit of solutions to that opportunity.  The four ways  -  I call them the four “Ps”  -  are practice, such as Total Quality Management teams, seizing the possibility of turning necessity into opportunity, gaining perspective by working on problems outside their main endeavors and gaining perspective, especially through collaborative projects.

The leader can have no greater thrill than seeing people capitalize on and improve their skills by making the improbably become reality.  And like the 1980 USA Olympic hockey team, achieve the improbable.

Motivation - an Addendum

Yesterday after posting my blub on “motivation” I was leafing through some of the publications that seem to accumulate around here and came across a back issue of “Leader to Leader”(number 44, Spring ’07).  The title of one of the articles, “Leadership starts with you,” naturally caught my eye.  It is an article by Ray Davis, the CEO of Umpqua Holdings, the parent company of South Umpqua State Bank in Oregon.  Ray and his bank have been featured in numerous publications including Fast Company and on CNBC.  He notes that the articles sometimes characterize the company as “quirky” or “cool” as they describe how it broke away from the competitive pack and embarked on 12 years of continuous growth  -  from $140 million in assets to more than $7 billion.  Among Ray’s comments is this gem:   “Umpqua is significant: it matters in the lives of the people who work here, in the lives of our customers, and in our communities. …. That is what matters to me, not size.”  Those words neatly capture the essence of what I was trying to say in that blog pasting yesterday.

Leading Innovation - The Third Principle - “Challenge” (cont’d)

          Awareness
          Intense Motivation
          Highly Skilled People
          A Supportive Infrastructure

Motivation  -  if any aspect of executive leadership is overworked and overhyped it is motivation.  We all have either observed highly motivated organizations, or if very fortunate, have experienced the exhilaration of being a part of a highly motivated group.

There are two quite different sorts of things that affect motivation.  It is helpful to think of them as intrinsic and extrinsic influences that motivate people.  Extrinsic factors are such things as incentive compensation, and elements of the environment in which we work.  In general extrinsic factors motivate people to go beyond merely “getting by,” to perform beyond normal expectations.  In short extrinsic motivational factors have to do with performance.

That is an important part of organization design and management practice.   But what I’m concerned with in this series of notes is innovation and the characteristics of highly innovative organizations.  So what is it that motivates people to innovate?  What motivates us to look for novel ways to meet some need?  Certainly external circumstances are a part of the answer.  The need for alternatives to fossil fuels as an energy source so as to improve economic sustainability has created a burst of innovation.  For example, in my blog “New Plus Ultra” (2/20/08) I talked about capacitor innovation.

The lead article in the “Business” section of the March 1st Economist features three executives  -  Shai Agassi (SAP), Elan Musk (Pay Pal), Vinod Khosta (venture capital) for whom the challenge and excitement of “green technology,” and in particular electric powered vehicles, is a powerful motivation to move from the world of information technology to “greener” pastures.

In The Eye for Innovation I tell the story of Hilda Pridgeon for whom the external circumstances of her life  -- her husband developed early-age onset of Alzheimers -- motivated her to start a support group for similarly afflicted families, an innovation that finally led to the formation of  the National Alzheimers Association.

So external circumstances, happenstance if you will, can provide powerful motivation to innovate.  But what we’re talking about here is executive leadership: what managers and executives can do to motivate, to stimulate, to awaken innovation in their organizations.  Surely there is something beyond just sitting around and waiting for cataclysmic change to motivate novel improvements in how we live, play and work.

Leadership in motivating innovation means first and foremost instilling in people an intense belief that the product or service they are delivering is important to human welfare.  Moreover, it means making every task meaningful to that purpose.

That was true for Control Data when it began its quest for the world’s most power computers in 1957.  It was true for Michael Dell in proving the effectiveness of direct marketing for personal computers.  Clearly it has been true for the people working at Google.  I find it equally true on a much smaller scale in companies such as Les LaMotte’s Xtra Lite Display Systems here in Minneapolis, and in the small hand of people teaching and guiding would be entrepreneurs at Dakota County Technical College under the leadership of Christine Pigsley, and in an amazing little company founded and run by Julie Hellwich called Smart Women.  In all of these situations, with products or services ranging from the mundane to those at the leading edge of technology, there is a leader who has great energy  and radiates enthusiasm for and belief in what they do.  More than that, they radiate a belief that what they do makes a difference for their customers and for the community in which they live.

So motivation, the inseparable companion of awareness, starts “at home”  -  with oneself.  There are many ways that an executive can help generate an environment of innovation.  Eliminating the fear of failure as discussed in chapter four of The Eye for Innovation is one of the most important.  But all that begins with an intense belief in oneself and a deep seated conviction that your organization can and will make a difference.

Integrity

The study and practice of science increases our knowledge and it is knowledge and know-how (technology) that are the foundation of innovation.  Innovation has provided the wherewithal not just to cope with an ever expanding number of people, but even to improve if somewhat unequally the economic well-being of that population.

I have been for many years a great fan of Richard P. Feynman.  Dick Feynman was not only a Noble Laureate, an outstanding teacher, but also a person of insatiable curiosity.  He had an incredible array of experiences, many of which are related in his book Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman.  One of the many insightful observations made in that book is that integrity is the essence of science.  In scientific experiments, he says, integrity demands that potential errors arising from approximations be fully and precisely reported so that others who want to verify or challenge or improve the theory behind the experiment may do so.  Only in that way can theories be tested and refined.  Contrast that with what passes for scientific “truth” in much of the advertizing for pharmaceuticals. 

Theories can only be tested by experiments – the test of reality.  But this “reality” is in turn a matter of being able to measure things to see if they fit the theory.  A simple example is  gravity.  We all learned that acceleration due to gravity on earth is a constant.  This “constant” has been continually refined for some 200 hundred years.  Similarly the value of “big G,” the gravitational force between any two objects is currently accurate to about one part in 10,000.  But using new measurement technology based on atom interferometry this can be refined and made more precise.  The ultra precision of atoms interferometry, resulting from the tiny wave lengths of atoms, opens up a host of applications such as improving exploration for minerals, detecting underground bunkers, more precise navigation than is possible with GPS just to name a few.

Science is the continual search to improve what we think of as the truth.  Measurement allows us to test theories and improve (or disprove) them.  Integrity is the framework for that never-ending truth.  In socio-economics we have a long way to go to even come close the paradigm that guides science.

Ne plus ultra

That is the attention grabbing title of a fascinating story in the February 2, 2008 Economist. 

In the current tsunami of writing on clean technology, green technology and in particular electricity generated from renewable sources, there is a serious gap:  the problem of storing electricity, or put the other way around providing a continuous flow of electricity as it is needed.  This problem is inherent in the most talked about alternatives such as solar and wind power.  It is one that requires as much innovation as does novel (i.e. non-fossil fuel based) generation.  Electricity storage is likewise the technological key to truly effective electric powered vehicles, in terms of endurance and speed.

The Economist article provides a good look at one innovation in storage:  a well-known technology, capacitors, have the potential to change the nature of the search for a better battery.  A capacitor stores energy as static charges on positive and negative electrodes separated by an insulator, whereas a battery works by having two chemical electrodes separated by an electrolyte (“battery acid”).  Capacitors charge and discharge very rapidly.  Batteries are slower but have more endurance (except sometimes on a brutally cold Minnesota morning).  The innovations at work and being demonstrated have to do with basic capacitor technology, and specifically ways of increasing the effective surface area of the capacitor’s electrodes.  There is also innovation at work in combining capacitors and batteries.   There are likewise new technologies for the insulator in a capacitor.  Beyond that, new nanotechnologies have the potential to dramatically improve the effective surface area and therefore a capacitor’s storage.  Thus arises the idea of the “ultra capacitor” – and the title of the article. 

What’s fun about this is that it is innovation at its best:  finding ways to improve and use old technology in novel ways. 

But read the article.  It is a good reminder that innovation can be found in ordinary places by those who have the curiosity and the motivation to do so.

Leading Innovation - The Third Principle - "Challenge"

In meeting the challenge of encouraging the risk-taking mindset that is at the core of innovation I have noted that one effective way to do that is to work backward.  When you look at an innovative organization what do you see  -  not so much what are the products or services it produces, but what are its essential characteristics.  They are:

                                    Awareness

Intense Motivation

High Skilled People

A Supportive Infrastructure

The first of these four is the most illusive.  Awareness doesn’t mean being conversant with the latest tools, techniques and technologies.  It is a characteristic that can only be built into an organization’s way of life with dedicated attention by management at all levels. 

We think of people with the awareness that allows them to take novel approaches to a business opportunity or meeting a challenge as being intuitive.  In my book The Eye for Innovation I relate two stories as an introduction to this topic these are those stories:

Bob Perkins was a designer in the early days of Control Data Corporation who had the responsibility for devising input-output equipment for its early computers.  One necessary input-output mechanism was the ability to read and produce punched cards.  Not technologically sophisticated, but at the time crucial to overall system performance.  These are Bob’s words, “I went down to Chicago, stuck my head into what was left of an old player piano company, and learned how to do a real cheap pneumatic read.”  Awareness.  Ideas and innovations arise from people’s special connections with the world around them.

Without question the semiconductor ranks among those inventions with the most far-reaching consequences in human history. As an innovator, Seymour Cray did not invent the semi-conductor, but he was aware of the possibilities it offered.  He was able to perceive geometric configurations of them that would result in the highest performance computers.  Seymour is a powerful example of awareness.  He was driven by a feeling for, and a deep-seated caring about, difficult problems that needed to be solved and, in turn, was intensely attentive to technologies he might find useful in designing computers of the highest possible performance.  In people such as Bob Perkins and Seymour Cray, there is an innate curiosity about problem solving that heightens their awareness of the possibilities for problem resolution.

It is a considerable leap, however, from a few innovative individuals to an organization that is similarly attuned. In nearly every organization one may find a creative individual. That does not make the company highly innovative. It is a corporate culture of awareness that is the basic building block of creative energy.  This characteristic of awareness can be learned, and, with practice, it can be honed to rewarding sharpness. Most of us will never design a supercomputer, but each of us can know the satisfaction of innovation, of devising a novel solution to the oft-felt dilemma, “There’s gotta be a better way.” Mostly we learn this skill through experience and practice. That’s not surprising. What is surprising is how few organizations know how to challenge employees and give them the opportunity to learn and practice that skill. Of all managerial inanities none is more regrettable than to deprive people of the opportunity to learn and exercise caring curiosity--the single most important skill to corporate health and renewal.

This caring curiosity  -  awareness  -  can be engendered in many ways, some seemingly somewhat mundane, some of major strategic importance to the company.  In the more routine category, consider TQM.  A vast amount of information has been produced on the Total Quality Management (TQM) movement, which, under the prodding and leadership of W. Edwards Deming, found its way into management practice globally. The thrust toward total quality resulted in such nationally accepted programs as the Baldrige National Quality Program.  TQM, however, is notably absent in the literature on innovation. This is unfortunate and reflects a mistakenly limited view of TQM, as well as the general mysticism that surrounds innovation. TQM tends to suffer from the incremental perspective that “continuous improvement” imposes. It suffers even more from the idea of minimizing variations from the norm, or from the product specification. The result is that TQM is associated with operational effectiveness only and has little to do with the creation of new things--new products, new services. Actually TQM can be a training ground for innovative thinking.

At Control Data TQM was approached within a cohesive innovative culture. In introducing the practice of TQM into Control Data, I stated this as the guiding principle:

       "Control Data wants each employee to believe two things:

       What I think and do matters to Control Data’s success.

       Always think and act on the statement, ‘There’s gotta be a better way!'”

At the level of strategic importance there is the matter of technological collaboration.  Executives who are capable of good strategic management have a clear cut idea of the distinction between those technologies, that is know how, that they must have just to be in the competitive game and that technology, that know how, that will give them a distinct competitive advantage.  The former can be thought of as “necessary,” the latter as “sufficient” to win the competitive battle.  One of the ways necessary technologies can be obtained is through collaboration with another company (or companies). 

Being aware of how others are attempting to use any given technology to meet their product or service goals is inherently eye-opening.  To empathize with another person, to see the world as that individual does, requires a much deeper understanding than what simply knowing about their circumstances can offer.  It requires solving a different set of problems with, more than likely, a different set of resources.  In short, it stimulates innovation by stimulating an awareness that there are new and different ways to look at and solve problems.

An example of collaboration at work in wind generation: before utilities can integrate wind generation on a large scale its effects on the grid must be accurately modeled.  Wind generator manufacturers historically spent significant resources to create proprietary models.  They looked upon this technology, i.e. the models, as offering competitive advantage in marketing their generators; the models were a “sufficient” technology.  For the utilities however they were merely something they had to have as part of building a total electricity generating system; the models were a “necessary” technology.

Abraham Ellis is an engineer at PNM Resources, a mid-size utility holding company in New Mexico and Texas, and a member of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).  Abraham became a member of WECC’s modeling and validation work group.  His view was that the lack of accessible models was hurting all parties, suppliers, utilities and ultimately, of course, the customers.  He naturally encountered skepticism from wind generator manufacturers.  There had been previous attempts at collaboration that had failed.  But Abraham persisted, marshaled support from the American Wind Energy Association, National Laboratories, and the Dept. Of Energy and transmission providers.  Finally he won commitment from the wind generator manufacturers.

A collaboration modeling group was established.  The result is models that are becoming industry standards.  Everyone benefits including the manufacturers.  Abraham says, “Manufacturers will no longer need to pay a consultant to revise a model every time they change a resistor.  Interestingly, we [the utilities] don’t need that level of detail, yet the manufacturers’ former insistence on [that kind of] specifically why what makes their models proprietary.”

One more example then of how technologically collaboration can provide both innovation and increased awareness of technological possibility.

There are still other ways to provide people with the opportunity to learn and exercise caring curiosity and to increase their awareness of problem solving opportunities.  One example of this is the problem of increasing the healthcare costs that companies face.  This is not a new problem.  Poor health and physical sluggishness have long been recognized as major factors in poor employee productivity, as well as increased medical costs to employers and employees.  By the 1970s some companies were offering exercise and fitness facilities to their employees.  My company, Control Data, conceived a much more holistic wellness program that encompassed diet, lifestyle, stress reduction, safe practices at home and while traveling and smoking cessation in addition to exercise and physical fitness.  It was called Staywell.

At its core this program involved improved information technology, especially wellness training and education. That was Control Data’s kind of business.  Internal necessity was turned into external business opportunity. The result was a new business that grew and prospered and ultimately was spun off as a separate company.  Those who participated in this process not only became aware of new problems and developed greater problem-solving, that is innovative expertise, many of them developed entrepreneurial expertise as well.

Awareness is cultivated in many ways.  Providing these opportunities is a matter of executive mindset and leadership.  Whether TQM is viewed as just a necessary part of everyday operation or in addition to that as a way to increase awareness, whether dealing with rising healthcare costs is viewed as a burden or an opportunity to increase awareness and creativity, is up to the leaders.  Those leaders who understand that awareness results from practice, practice, practice, will seize such opportunities for their people.  That’s the way they walk the talk. 

In some employees it will blossom into new products or new businesses, but it is a fact of life that all of us are surrounded by problems that can benefit from attention . . . if only we’d give it.  It is a matter of training minds to think in new ways and to recognize possibilities amid everyday experiences and observations.

Almost inseparable from an organization that exhibits awareness  -  this characteristic of a seemingly extraordinary intuitive ability to find novel ways to do things  -  is a characteristic of truly motivated, intensely motivated people.  I’ll come back to that point in a future posting.