I’ll probably say more about this when I get a copy of the slides Scott (Berkun, author of The Art of Project Management and the upcoming The Myths of Innovation used, but the emphasis of this session was on being an innovator and integrating the art and creativity of innovation with the real world demands for schedules, milestones, and fiscal responsibility. So, my scattered notes of things that I found particularly interesting:

It helps to define innovation (my thought: it’s like pornography– hard to define, but I know it when I see it). His simple definition: to begin or introduce something for the first time.

Innovation is always relative.

Being better, more efficient, different– even winning– can all be done without innovating.

The Christensen books are OK, but they are more about managing innovation than being an innovator.

Everett Rogers’ book Diffusion of Innovation is a must read.

Many people subconsciously (or not) think that failing while being innovative is somehow preferable to succeeding without innovation. Progress is greater than innovation. Success is greater than innovation.

There are many commonalities between explorers and innovators. If you have trails, you aren’t innovating. It’s not like a roadmap, but a treasure map.

Captain Kirk embodies the mythology of innovation– you see the individual highlights, but none of the boring parts in between.

Innovation is often a side-effect. Few innovators in the past have obsessed over whether they were engaged in innovative activities… instead they are problem solvers. If innovation is a term in your job description, it is likely there is trouble. The focus should be on solving problems and profiting from solutions.

Innovation is risky. Exploring is expensive. Investment in innovation is unpredictable and of uncertain return.

Many factors are beyond our control: markets, economies and politics; fads, trends, social movements; the action of competitors; the behavior of consumers.

The summary so far: innovation is a social function; innovation is defined by exposure to unknowns; “good” is plenty hard enough and a much better financial bet; we romanticize and exaggerate success.

At this point Scott asked the audience to shout out conditions necessary for innovation. The bulk of peoples’ answers were about context and items that are outside of their control (freedom, safety to fail, etc). Then he posted his list of needs, which were all about the needs of the individual innovator: motivation, creative thinking, an experimenter’s mentality, ignorance of– or a desire to challenge– the status quo, threshold for working with risk and uncertainty, time and money for this hard work.

Apply the rules of improv comedy: yes and …, no half-assing, no apologies, make the other guy look better.

The time (and management) problem comes because people are always late and are conditioned to think of time as flexible. As Michelangelo commented:

It was more work than I could finish in my lifetime. Yet I signed a contract: 5 years. My curse: to take on my than I could possibly do. Madness!

Consider planning projects on a curver (for a softer landing).

It’s not design-implement-test, it’s explore-define-implement–test

More later when I am not falling aslep at the keyboard!