The way innovation plays out in the real world is fuzzier than some books or TED talks would have us believe.
Very often the persons who suggest practical innovations are the very people who rebel against innovations being made. Nuts, but there it is. And when people unilaterally implement innovations it can make things worse, because they only see their part of an operation, not the knock-off effects down the line.
Many years ago we had a big problem where I work: increased instances of cargo shifting in heavy weather. The reason was complex. It had to do with a change in the variety of cargo we carried from Alaska to Seattle, and a relative increase in a particular type of packaging for frozen fish products. The palletized cargo trade is filled with these sort of arcane details. Change one small thing and everything changes.
A solution had to be found fast, or customers might be lost. There were theories as to the physics behind the problem, and a few possible solutions, but no concrete data. âConsultantsâ were useless.
The whole problem was dumped in my lap. Iâm no genius. But I was smart enough to know that solutions were likely to be found by talking to our mariners and longshoremen. So I interviewed them and found they indeed had data on the physics, as well as solutions. But no one person completely understood the physics, or had all the solutions. Only when everyone had been interviewed did the complex picture reveal itself.
Once it did, a system of several different techniques was developed. New dunnage was invented. Manuals were written and distributed with a codified system which was taught to everyone. The cargo shifting problem all but disappeared overnight. After that, the very rare instances could be easily traced to someone not following the system.
So, an innovation success-story based on suggestions from ABs and mates, right?
The problem was that the very group of people who had the solutions sometimes fought against the new system. Individuals would say their own solution made sense to them, but the rest of the system was crap. A few people decided they knew a âbetter wayâ to do things. (The better way invariably required less physical effort on their part).
The fact that their 'innovation" lead to cargo damage was something they didnât see, because they werenât the guys who unloaded the cargo in Seattle. They didnât have the big picture. Leading inevitably to those isolated instances of cargo shifting I mentioned.
The solution? Officers demanded things to be done by the book, all the time, period. Sound familiar? Changes are made to the system, but they arenât made willy-nilly. Thereâs a time and a place for everything.
Thatâs the real world of innovation. No heroes and villains. Just a messy, fuzzy give-and-take.