Using the perfect storm

Last last week I was on the phone to a large credit union in North America getting material for a case study in my book. I was speaking with them because they'd released a significant social media site, and I wanted to get background on why the idea happened, and more importantly, how they got it out the door. In my experience, the more unusual and visible the innovation, the more difficult an institution finds it to actually do something with it.

What I was expecting was that I'd be getting a story about the travails and tribulations of a small group with a vision trying to make a figurative supertanker turn on a dime.

But that wasn't what happened. The idea for this particular social media site grew itself in a number of team meetings. Then, it practically walked out the door without much push at all. The team had to steer, but there was no need to "gunpowder" the implementation.

My own team and I use that term for the set of things we have to do to make sure that something new doesn't stall during implementation. The process of implementation inevitably results in many compromises, both on the business and technical side. Sometimes those compromises stack up, to the point where the project stalls under its own weight.

Here is one of the critical things about innovation teams: they aren't the implementation bullet, but they are often be the gunpowder that propels it. They have a role in debugging the implementation of whatever-it-is because they are the ones most familiar with the end goal.

In any event, everything that we know to be true about innovation in banks- the need for process, the business case, stage gates, and all the rest - proved to be unnecessary for this social media innovation.

When I double-clicked on the whole process, what I was expecting to find was an "innovation culture", an institution that let its people create and rewarded them for it.

But apparently that wasn't the case: I found out that the innovation was a once-off. How could such a thing happen?

What occurred was a perfect storm of factors. An alignment of political, economic, brand and community that all came together at the right time. Everyone just said "yes".That is a very unusual thing. Most of the time (as those of you who are innovators would know), you have to do lots of sales, lots of politics, and lots of numbers.

In short, you have to push uphill.

After thinking about this for a while, it strikes me that perfect storms of this kind do, actually,  happen quite a lot in organisations.  And when you drill into them, they are comprised of three factors:

• The need: something pressing that needs to be done, where existing solutions aren't a good fit.
• The money: someone has some, and is ready to spend. And the money they have doesn't need multiple levels of sign off.
• The politics: everyone acknowledges the need, and wants to do something about it. And the need is pressing enough that individual agendas become less important than the solution.

As bank innovators, how much of our time is spent creating one or more of these factors from scratch? I'd argue a lot, and it probably isn't all that necessary. There are many perfect storms everywhere, as long as you can see them.

Seeing them is the trick, not creating them. Of course to see, you must first have eyes. The eyes, in this game, are the relationships that innovators build with stakeholders. I'd argue that a productive course would be to do far less innovating and more meeting.

Comments

[William Azaroff]

Thanks for this, James. If you've already built good relationships, fostered a lot of trust across the organization and are persuasive, then taking advantage of those "perfect storm" moments become very eary.

Then the job is to ensure the inititaives meet expectations and are successful so you can do more.

Wait until the current is moving in your direction and then act quickly, rather than always swim against the flow.

[Simon Deane-Johns]

James, wait, you were on the phone to a large credit union in North America to ask how it launched a social media site?! What's your case study on, "fast-followers in the slow lane"? :-D

Seriously, there's no evidence of innovation amongst retail financial institutions, nor the ability to ever consistently deliver it - one-offs don't count. Surely a bank's only hope in the innovation space is to match any truly cost-effective, reliable capabilities that it has with the needs of truly innovative customers.

[Colin Henderson]

If I read right with CU you spoke with, I believe this is unique for one key reason. That CU has a unique (in a good way) business model that takes into account the very things that a social network will offer as benefits.

The air cover provided by a business model that supports your efforts is hard to beat.

On the other hand (all?) the other Banks and CU's have business models that have brand protection, at their core, and brand protection tends to get translated into take no risks that could have our brand discussed in areas that we do not control.

Just as in the 90's when internet banking took off, it was clear that it would not (take off) unless their was commitment from the Senior Management, and that commitment was embedded into the Banks business model.

The question I have, is how can we get that senior commitment embedded into genuine innovation?