Comments on: The Innovation Fallacy, Part 2

By: Covering the DRC - challenges for Ushahidi - The Ushahidi Blog

Covering the DRC - challenges for Ushahidi - The Ushahidi Blog — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:33:28 +0000

[...] bring them on board or get around them if necessary?Â [And along with that you can add the general reluctance to embrace [...]

By: Mikel Maron

Mikel Maron — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:15:16 +0000

http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/05/disastertech-jesse-robbins-mikel-maron-where20.html

In Jesse’s and my simple pattern, the key component is a “champion”, to promote and usher through innovation until its picked up by organizational DNA. This is a very individualistic notion, and codifying into an institutional practice may be difficult, except for hiring creative free thinkers into organizations and giving them the freedom to pursue new ideas.

Perhaps pursuing innovation within organizations from the start is the barrier. Innovation is happening outside traditional structures, where those creative types can act as individuals, collectively .. in open source projects, mailing lists, unconferences. The loose network of creative technological humanitarians is growing, and growing more exposed. We can concentrate our efforts there for now, to the point where they can’t be ignored.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:46:08 +0000

Michael – you are absolutely right about the need for better connections between staff, the vertical and horizontal connections that I mentioned in the post. In particular I feel strongly that connections between national staff are completely neglected and in some cases discouraged – despite the fact that national staff are the backbone of the organisation, and the key to the “ownership” that you talked about.

By: Michael Howden

Michael Howden — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:39:09 +0000

The Not Invented Here syndrome is a problem, but in my experienced this can be caused by national staff (correctly) been skeptical of expats flying in with “solutions”, without taking the time to understand the context, or at least trying to give the staff a sense of ownership of the “solution” which ultimately they will be left using.

This skepticism is when within months/years another expat flies in with a different “solution” to the same problem!

I agree that the answers lies in better connections between field offices and head offices, among organizations AND ALSO between different field offices. I think that head offices could play a better role in facilitating the transfer of solutions between field offices.

Currently all the interaction I have with head office and field offices in different countries has been based on personal relationships with people I have met. I do think that INGOs could do a better job of connecting their staff around the globe.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:16:44 +0000

I have mixed feelings about the role of finance in innovation; in humanitarian response, the profit motive is quite weak but things still get done. A lot of innovation is not financially motivated, although almost all successful innovation requires a financial component.

Thanks for the ref to the Jim Fruchterman article, although the irony of it being stuck behind a pay barrier made me smile . Benetech clearly smuggle in some assumptions – “market failure” – but the criteria for investment are interesting.

By: Patrick Meier

Patrick Meier — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:57:26 +0000

There appears to be little profit motive (financial) for innovation in the humanitarian sector. See this piece by Benetech’s CEO on “Developing ICT for Social Need” published last month:

http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/developing-ict

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:49:57 +0000

You’re right – the staffing issue is only one of many. You’ve also pre-empted my third post – learning from failure is a critical ingredient that we’re missing, let alone embracing failure as an opportunity to learn. There’s a very basic reason for that built into the system, which I’ll talk about in a later post. Any suggestions on how to overcome that fear of failure are welcome, of course!

By: Kevin Toomer

Kevin Toomer — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:13:37 +0000

I’m not sure that institutional memory and staff turnover are the key limiting factors here. In fact institutional memory can stifle innovation…’this is the way we do things here, its the way we have always done it.’

Other factors may have greater impact. Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome is common, especially amongst national staff. I’ve been told more often than I would like by national staff “That won’t work here… we are different… the context is different… we are not [insert country or region of choice here]“.

Many humanitarian organizations, especially larger NGOs and the UN, fail to embrace failure. Innovation requires a willingness to fail, perhaps repeatedly. For every successful innovation there are numerous failures. How many organizations are comfortable with risking donor money on ideas that have a high risk of failure? When was the last time you saw an organizational document titled “Woohoo! Our Project Failed! – Now we know one more thing that doesn’t work”?