Report 103

Your newsletter on applied creativity, imagination, ideas and innovation in business.

Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Issue 170

Hello and welcome to another issue of Report 103, your twice-monthly newsletter on creativity, imagination, ideas and innovation in business.

As always, if you have news about creativity, imagination, ideas, or innovation please feel free to forward it to me for potential inclusion in Report103. Your comments and feedback are also always welcome.

Information on unsubscribing, archives, reprinting articles, etc can be found at the end of this newsletter.

MORE FREQUENT PUBLISHING

Owing to popular demand, we are again publishing Report 103 twice a month!

GUEST AUTHORS

I am delighted to introduce to you Michael Spense and Kenneth Savin,who have contributed to Report 103 – and you – a thought-provoking article based on their recent research.

By the way, we are always looking for contributions for Report 103. If you have recently written something that you would like to republish in Report 103, or if you have an idea for an article, please get in touch with me.

TEAMS OF TWO – THE POWER OF PARTNERING
By Michael C. Spence and Kenneth A. Savin of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Premised on sharing knowledge, clear accountability, and precise execution, teams of two have shown to be effective over time. Each business requires worthy application of its most valuable asset: people. Here we explore an alternative approach to forming teams from historic military application to recent business models.

In late 2003, following Operation Desert Storm, the Marines were again sent back in to Iraq when the insurgency surfaced. Jim Vesterman, one of the marines¹, describes how his unit deployed on one specific occasion:

“We instinctively split into buddy teams - you never work alone - and my buddy and I began searching the area while the other team moved toward the pushcart. We recognized one of the men moving away from the scene and intercepted him. While I flex-cuffed the man, my partner moved to hold security.”

“The same coordination was happening with the other buddy team: One held security while the other opened the abandoned pushcart. As we suspected, there were two Saddam-era artillery shells inside, rigged as bombs....”

Much has been written about teams and team work. Team dynamics, leadership and team building seem to be prolific topics in business sections at book stores and on the internet. One team topic has been less popular, but provides an opportunity for a fast and impact-full change in organizational structure, and that topic is Teams of Two. Teams of two are (of course) very common and have a proven record of success in many different fields of endeavor: (Rolls and Royce, Jobs and Wozniak, Gates and Allen). But why? What are the advantages that a team of two has over individuals working alone or teams of three or more? Herein we describe the advantages held by a Team of Two and then how to organize two person teams and exploit their potential.

The potential synergies of having two people address projects are often not well understood before a project is initiated and are only realized during the effort.² These advantages include:

Speed - Maneuverability
Simplicity - Single path of communication / meetings are simplified vs. larger teams.
Synergy - Ability to build in redundancies/synergies to improve efficiency (when one person is gone, the other can stand in his place), share expertise and accelerated training.
Self-reflection - Immediate feedback leading to accelerated learning within the Team.
Shared Learning - More effective team to team learning than individuals could accomplish.
Stability – Reinforcement and a consistent environment for the individuals involved.
Structure – Inherent accountability

Many military organizations employ teams of two, even though perhaps not officially recognized, in order to provide a simple benefit: provide moral and fire support for your buddy. The two man team is considered the smallest effective combat unit. “Two men can effectively manage much greater mission outlines and objectives, than separate individuals can.” ³

In addition to providing security/cover in a combat situation, the pairing has been built into basic training to provide security and solace on an emotional level – a person to talk with, someone who shares in the “experience” of the new environment. This leads to increased trust and understanding between individuals. The buddy system also decreases the chance of missing assignments, improves recognition of (mental) health issues and keeps people out of trouble when off duty or off base. ^4,5

In business, the significance of teams of two is very familiar; in a recent Time Magazine article ⁶ the author interviewed several successful venture capitalists and entrepreneurs who gave suggestions describing how to build successful start-ups. The first piece of advice given:“Find a co-founder”. Start-up expert, Paul Graham says most successful start-ups are collaborative. “Going it alone is usually a “recipe for disaster”. He goes on to say, “Find someone whose skills compliment your own.” The partners can provide a sounding board and “safe place” in which the most sensitive and potentially most vital discussions can be had. Often, individuals who decide to go it alone do not get a chance to work through key issues or situations with the perspective of another individual and suffer as a result.

A more specific application of teams of two in business can be seen in agile programming. The two programmers, sitting side by side, work at the same machine. This helps to ensure that all production code is reviewed by at least one other programmer resulting in better design, better testing, and better code. It has been shown that pairing produces better code than if a single programmer had worked on the effort alone. Benefits include higher quality code, greater enjoyment in their jobs, and more confidence in their work.⁷ Pair programming delivers enhanced communication, fast feedback and the courage to identify and address issues quickly – key benefits of a small team.

Organizing Teams of Two

Implementing paired teams is really very simple on the surface, select projects that would have normally gone to individuals or small teams and pair up people to work on them. There are a few key recommendations we would make based upon our research.

Team Composition

The pairs should be comfortable working together but should offer complementary skills.

Long-term benefits can be realized as the pairing also helps to cross train and develop people and helps to spread specialized knowledge.Team members become more valuable to the organization and can better fill in for others if someone leaves. The success of a good pairing can be seen in the development of strong networks within the organization and people with broad skill sets.

Resources

A Team of Two may be made most productive by assigning it more than one project at a time. This does require prioritizing work based upon the timelines and portfolio requirements but ultimately makes the team more efficient and effective. Where the projects are bigger (not necessarily longer, but involve more work in a shorter period of time) it may be advantageous to group two sets of pairs together on the effort. For a project that would normally have taken three people, have a couple of Teams of Two work on the task together.

Performance Management

Performance management has always been a challenge when it comes to promoting teamwork and it must be addressed as part of the Teams of Two effort. The focus needs to shift more towards team goals and team outcomes. This does not mean that the individual goals and contributions are not to be considered; rather they cannot be designed in a way where the goals of the team would be contradictory.

Communication

Again, communication is a key aspect leading to the success of teams. There should be a defined time for team communication in addition to the ongoing exchanges that occur as part of any group effort.

In a study of teams of two playing in strategy games the most common topic of discussion was around decision making. In short, strategic play develops more rapidly in Teams of Two and the superiority of team play increases as the team communicates and apply themselves to the more difficult strategic challenges.

Communication is a significant contributor to this development of team effort and leads Teams of Two to perform in a superior manner to individuals in cross-game (application of skills for one game to the next type of game) learning situations. ^{4b, 8, 9, 10}

Conclusion

The two person team concept is not a new idea. Two person teams have been implemented and have achieved considerable value and positive impact in military and business scenarios. A cursory review of the Fortune 500 list (July 2009 CNN 11) revealed that about one out of four companies on this list can be traced back to a Team of Two. How significant is this? We believe this is another way to illustrate that the concept is proven and that it can deliver powerful results.

Looking forward, there may be an opportunity for companies to have a more focused approach to business team structuring in a way similar to the direction military organizations have moved, creating more effective organizational groupings. The current business climate should press companies to explore alternative team organizational paradigms to achieve their goals of cycle time, quality, innovation and cost. By leveraging Teams of Two, companies can improve business processes and impact a formidable corporate culture. Two person teams achieve a balance of agility, lacking in larger teams, and accelerated learning, not realized by the individual. This simple model of team structure has benefits beyond the immediate improvements in performance; it can lend itself to the development of a more capable workforce and this represents a way to improve the return on the most important asset a company has, its’ people.

References:

1. From Wharton To War, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune, Jim Vesterman, FORTUNE Magazine, June 1, 2006. 2a. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273-283.

2b. Less is More: Jumpstarting Productivity with Small Teams, Steve McConnell, Software Development, October 1997.

3. Battle Buddies: Commentary by Lt. Col. Bichson Bush 344th Military Intelligence Battalion commander 1/22/2009 - GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE, Texas.

4a. Scott Lewis, WWW.SWATMAG.com, Two man team tactics, August 2005.

4b. Although virtual, teams of two have been found to be superior in “first person” video games like SWAT-3 and is recommended in tactical help guides. For example, online tactical recommendations from one site include:

Movements:

-Hallways: Teams of two move down a hallway, officer 1 directs the movement, while officer 2 is slightly behind and just right of officer 1. Any doors on the left are covered by 1 while doors on the right are covered by 2. Both officers NEVER cross in front of a door or area without clearing it first.

-Staircases: Teams of two move up or down stairs, 1 watch up or down in the direction the team is moving, officer 2 walks backwards covering the rear or high ground. Unless there is another team to cover the rear while that team moves up and clears the stairs. You stop at the top or bottom of the stairs (depending on direction moving) while the element re-stacks.
Taken from http://www.tacticalgamer.com/tactical-briefs-articles/119230-swat-tactics-procedures.html. SWAT Tactics and Procedures

5. http://people.howstuffworks.com/swat-team3.htm: How SWAT Teams Work, Ed Grabianowski.6. Quittner, J., The New Internet Start-Up Boom: Get Rich Slow, Time Magazine, April 20, 2009. pg 45. .

7. Extreme Programming Used to Establish the Culture of a High Performance Team: A Management Case Study, Clement James Goebel III, PMP, (See pages 10 and 16). http://www.menloinstitute.com

8. Wilensky, U. Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World, Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 8, no. 1 (1999).

9. Cooper, D. J., Kagel, J. H., Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team Versus Individual Play in Signaling Games, The American Economic Review, June 2005 , Vol 95, No 3 ,pg 477-509.

10. Solomon, G., Perkins, D. N., Rocky Roads to Tranfer; Rethinking Mechanisms of a Neglected Phenomenon”, Educational Psychologist, 1989, 24 (2), pg 113-142.

11. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/

About the Authors

Mike Spence and Ken Savin are chemists working in the pharmaceutical industry and are based in Indianapolis. Trained as Lean Six Sigma Black Belts, they have both run many projects inside and outside pharma and have focused on teams and culture as a way to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations.

ORGANISATIONAL INNOVATION

Question: who is the most innovative person in your organisation?

That is a trick question, of course. Within the organisational context, innovation is not an individual thing. Rather it is a collaborative act that involves many people working together. If you did name an individual, the chances are that you were actually answering a different question all together, namely: “who is the most creative thinker in your organisation?” But, as we have stressed in this newsletter many times before, creativity and innovation are very different things. Creativity is an intellectual process of combining two or more existing ideas in order to create a new idea. Innovation (in the corporate world) is the implementation of creative ideas in order to generate value for the organisation, typically through increased income, reduced operational costs or both.

In most organisations even creativity is not the preserve of an individual. Rather it is a collaborative act. Yes, the initial spark of an idea often comes from an individual creative thinker. But it is rare that the original spark is sufficient to be implemented immediately. Rather, people within the firm collaborate to improve upon the idea. That is part of the creative process as well as the innovative process.

A Scenario

Let’s imagine a little scenario. You are a high level manager in a global umbrella manufacturer. One evening after work you go out for a glass of wine or a cup of tea (or whatever is your favourite drink for relaxation) with a couple of friendly colleagues from the office. While joking around, you suggest a motorised umbrella that opens and closes electronically. You have a good laugh, but think there might be something to the idea. Because you are a good creative thinker, you carry a notebook around with you. So, you write down your idea before going home.

The next day, you may find that each of your colleagues thinks she came up with the idea. In fact, you all are right. You and your colleagues collaborated to develop the idea. After all, if you had not been out for a drink with your colleagues, you probably would not have had the idea. You may have suggested the idea itself, but it was built upon suggestions from the others.

In fact, many creative ideas start off this way, in an open discussion between colleagues. However an idea is nothing more than an idea unless you do something with it.

Developing the Idea

You continue to like the idea of an automatic umbrella with small electric motors inside which open and shut the umbrella automatically. So, the first thing you do is bring together a few colleagues from various divisions in order to explore the idea. People make suggestions on improving the idea. The chap in the large umbrella division notes that such an engine could be very useful for cafés with outdoor tables. A central switch to open and close umbrellas from inside would be attractive to your customers. Others note that automatic umbrellas would probably sell particularly well in Japan and the USA, where gadgets are particularly popular.

Most likely, your firm lacks expertise in electric motors. After all, they are not used in umbrellas normally – although you expect that situation to change with your idea. Hence you tap into your network to find someone who would know about such things. You call him and he puts you in touch with a small firm that specialises in designing motorised devices. You discuss your idea with a project manager at the firm and she suggests a few ideas that would make your automatic umbrellas function particularly well.

As you can see, by involving a diverse group of people in the idea development phase, you improve upon the idea considerably. At this stage, the idea has moved from being a simple idea to being a concept that is the sum of many ideas.

Realising the Idea

At this time, you will probably need to sell your concept to people who can authorise the budget for the launch of a radical new product. Assume that thanks to your charm, a cool prototype and a compelling business case, this step is easy. Now, you need to implement the concept and turn it into an innovation.

In this day and age, you will probably outsource the production of the motorised elements of your umbrella to a firm in China or South East Asia rather than launch such a radical new production process in your own firm, at least initially. Again, you will likely get feedback and suggestions from your supplier, that will add further creativity to the concept.

While this is happening, you also need to work with your people in marketing and sales. After all, no matter how potentially innovative your product may be, if you cannot sell it, it does not do your firm much good. And if prospective customers neither know about nor can find your product in the shops, it will not sell. Getting over these issues is, of course, the job of sales and marketing.

They will also need to be creative in order to help the automatic umbrellas become a commercial success. This will involve advertising, sales promotions, public relations work and more. Each of these steps requires more collaborative creativity to succeed.

And the Innovation

After all this collaboration and hard work, let’s assume the umbrellas are launched in the market place and become wildly successful. Your firm doubles its turnover and is featured in Fortune, Wired, Umbrella Technology Magazine and, of course, Report 103. There is no doubt about it, that creative idea you and your friends conceived over drinks in the pub has turned into a true breakthrough innovation.

But who was the innovator?

Why all of you were, of course!

Lesson to Be Learned

There is one simple lesson to be learned here: true innovation is a collaborative act. There are no individual innovators in your firm.

As a result, if you want to encourage innovation in your firm, your focus should not be on enabling individuals to be more innovative (which does not even make sense). Rather it should be about facilitating innovative networks that allow people to collaborate on developing ideas, that allow people to identify experts who can help them build their ideas into concepts and the freedom for employees to contact outsiders for inspiration and support in turning creative ideas into innovations.

Moreover, if you are rewarding innovators in your firm, be sure to reward all involved. In the example above, if you are the only person who is rewarded, for having the initial idea, particularly if the reward is substantial, there is a good chance that other people in your innovation network will be upset. And this will discourage them from being so cooperative in the future.

Innovation grows in networks and stagnates when trapped in individuals.

On a related note, downsizing a work force can have a disastrous affect on innovative networks and, hence innovation. Read Downsizing Workforce Downsizes Innovation here: http://www.creativejeffrey.com/creative/downsizing_dangers.php

EVERY NEW START-UP STARTS UP WITH AN IDEA

Every new business that is launched starts with an idea. Sometimes, it is not a terribly creative idea. Perhaps you simply want to run your own pizzeria or paintball arena. But often the spark behind the business is a creative idea that burns in the mind of an entrepreneur.

Let me give you a personal example for a change. Almost 20 years ago, I was running the (non-editorial) communications division of a multilingual Asian newspaper and magazine publisher based in Bangkok. I was also fluent in Thai, understood the culture better than most foreigners there and could write well in English. As a result, some of the advertising sales people at this firm came to me with Thai language advertising copy which their clients wanted done in English. They also knew that a direct translation would not make for compelling copy. Rather someone needed to read the Thai copy, understand the meaning and re-interpret it into concise, compelling English

So, I found myself with a sideline for translating advertising copy into English. Before long, this inspired the idea to launch a small communications firm specialising in making English language creative advertising and marketing material for Thai export oriented businesses. I could take the briefs from clients in Thai and work with subcontractors, such as printers, designers and publishers to create the materials.

As the idea grew in my head, I became increasingly bored with my job at the time. Moreover, I knew that there was no way the company I worked for would empower me to create such a division there. So, I quit and set up JPB Creative Co, Ltd. My first company. When the Internet boom started up a couple years later, my employees and I saw the opportunity to use the web as a marketing tool for our clients and as a result of this idea, JPB Creative was radically altered in 1995 to become one of Thailand’s pioneering internet and multimedia firms.

As per my article above, I do not take credit for the innovations of JPB Creative. I only had the ideas and the determination to turn them into businesses.

Skip Ahead a Decade or So

Some years, the sale of a company and an international move later, I found myself in a boring job in Brussels. I thought back to a software product JPB Creative had made in the 90s: Brainstormer. This was a simple personal brainstorming tool that also included an evaluation tool for identifying the ideas that would best meet your needs.

In the early 2000s, it was clear that by making Brainstormer a web based software product available to employees in a company, it would be a great tool for requesting, capturing and evaluating ideas that could become innovations. In short, it was the basis of an Idea Management software tool.

Knowing that there was no way my employer of the time would empower me to build the software in their firm, I left and set up the company that would build Jenni idea management software.

Many entrepreneurs will tell you a similar story. They have a great idea. But they cannot or will not turn that idea into reality with their employers.

Eventually, they leave their safe jobs and start their own firms. Sometimes, they are dismissed, perhaps because of lay-offs or perhaps because they are perceived as rebellious troublemakers – which many highly creative people are!

If these entrepreneurs are successful, other firms are likely to buy their businesses for millions of Euro (dollar, pounds, etc).

Entrepreneurialism = Masochism

While every entrepreneur launches her business with visions of success, growth and eventual riches, the truth is that starting your own company requires you work twice as hard as you used to and for far less income, at least initially. Moreover, starting a new business is extremely stressful. Indeed, many entrepreneurs I know have broken marriages behind them.

Nevertheless, entrepreneurs are also optimists and, with visions in their heads, determinedly build their businesses. Many fail, but learn a lot along the way. Many succeed.

Lessons for Big Business

Let’s go back to my story. What if that publishing company encouraged true entrepreneurialism among employees? What if I could have put a business case to the CEO, knowing that if he was impressed he would give me budget, authorisation to go ahead and an equity stake in the venture.

At best, my idea would have become a successful new division at the publishing company or a spin-off company part owned by them. At worst, it would have failed, some income would have been lost and I would have learned a great deal, making me more valuable to the firm.

Many large firms claim they want entrepreneurial employees. But the truth is that most large firms discourage such employees from acting entrepreneurial. But it does not need to be this way. If large firms gave entrepreneurs the chance to develop, sell and eventually launch their ideas, they could truly reap the rewards of entrepreneurialism.

Moreover, it would be a darn sight less expensive than waiting for those entrepreneurs’ firms to become successful and then having to buy those firms for millions.

NEW JENNI CONSULTANT IN NAMIBIA/SOUTH AFRICA

We are delighted to welcome to our global team of innovation consultants, Rikus Grobler and his newly established company: Namibia Innovation Solutions. Rikus is qualified in the disciplines of Engineering, Law and Commerce. He has worked in a variety of industries as well as having been involved in a couple of start-up businesses. Based on his varied experience he has come to realise that his true calling is Innovation, Creativity and Entrepreneurship.

At the beginning of 2010, Rikus set-up his consultancy - Namibia Innovation Solutions - to provide services in Innovation Management, Strategy Formulation, Marketing Management and Project Management for businesses located in Southern Africa.

Rikus has strong roots in the IT Industry and Project Management. He utilizes this experience in the planning and implementation of Innovation Programs and Idea Management Systems for his clients.

Rikus also lectures part-time for an International MBA program and he has been appointed by the Government of Namibia to draft a National Innovation Policy for Namibia.

And, of course, he is providing Jenni innovation process management software and related services to his clients in southern Africa.

Jenni has been used by companies in the region such as Agra in Namibia as well as Primedia and Sterkinekor in South Africa. Rikus is personally overseeing the Agra implementation of Jenni while helping the company develop a sustainable culture of innovation. And, frankly, he is seeing excellent results!

JENNI IDEA MANAGEMENT

Manufacturing companies in the USA and Australia have used Jenni to devise new food products. An international bank in Europe has used Jenni to develop new financial products. Chemicals firms in the US, UK and Germany have used Jenni to develop new products and services. Water and power supply firms in Australia have used Jenni to develop new ways to deliver existing products more efficiently. And companies around the globe have used Jenni to develop ideas to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

These companies appreciate Jenni’s unique functionality, such as ideas campaigns that align idea generation with strategy and let managers take charge of their own innovation activities; team management tools that allow managers to assign tasks to teams and let teams run ideas campaigns, evaluate ideas and even write blogs citing the progress off their projects; and Jenni’s powerful evaluation suite that gives managers the information they need to make business decisions about potentially innovative ideas.

Discover for yourself what Jenni can do for your firm. Visit http://www.creativejeffrey.com/jenni or contact me by replying to this newsletter. I will answer you personally and put you in touch with your nearest representative.

JEFFREY'S PERSONAL AND UNGODLY CREATIVE ACTIVITY SPACE

If you have been reading Report 103 for a while and have begun to wonder what sort of chap I am in real life, you can visit my newly created personal web site at http://www.ungodly.com. It contains some artwork I have created recently (I am hoping to digitise older work soon) and a rather unusual blog.

Happy thinking!

Jeffrey Baumgartner

---------------------------------------------------

Report 103 is a complimentary eJournal from Bwiti bvba of Belgium (a jpb.com company: http://www.creativejeffrey.com). Archives and subscription information can be found at http://www.creativejeffrey.com/report103/

Report 103 is edited by Jeffrey Baumgartner and is published on a monthly basis.

You may forward this copy of Report 103 to anyone, provided you forward it in its entirety and do not edit it in any way. If you wish to reprint only a part of Report 103, please contact Jeffrey Baumgartner.

Contributions and press releases are welcome. Please contact Jeffrey in the first instance.