An innovation may be defined as an
original idea or approach that improves practice, creating or adding value to
the realisation of desired outcomes.
Two levels of
innovation are proposed for any organization seeking to remain viable: internal
and external:
Internal Innovation is a new approach or practice that adds
demonstrable value and which, whilst it may have already been seen elsewhere,
has not yet been visible or scaled within the organisation. As it is new to the
organisation, or not yet normal practice, then it may still be classified as
innovation.
External Innovation is an original practice, which has
demonstrable impact, or the potential to deliver such impact, and is truly unique
to the organisation.
It is essential that
we distinguish these types of innovation to ensure we are clear as to where we
are really innovating and developing Unique Selling Points on the one hand or merely keeping up on the other.
This is not to say that
internal innovations do not have value. Indeed, they are essential to ensure the future viability of the organisation. They should, however, be seen for
what they are – playing catch up or keeping pace rather than truly leading.
There is an essential role to be played here by any R&D function, in
ensuring employees are aware of effective global practice, both in education and
business processes, and also by those charged with facilitating the sharing and
scaling of the most effective existing and emerging internal innovations.
Measuring
Innovation
Whether an innovation
is internal or external, its true value lies in its potential to be scaled
to the point of normality.
Everyone has an iPad
(or tablet).
Everyone has a TV.
Everyone has a mobile
phone – kids don’t even call them mobiles; they’re just phones.
These pure,
technological innovations have been successful.
Question: What makes them successful innovations?
Answer: Once they were new and now they are normal.
In fact, objective measurement
of their impact may be irrelevant – the customers have decided that the
innovations add value and they have flocked. Competitors have ‘built on’ the
innovations, e.g. Samsung’s phones and tablets all look like Apple products
(not without a fair amount of litigation along the way, of course).
So a good measure of
effective innovation may be imitation – i.e. viral, global
reproduction at scale by competitors (or internally across the group). It
should be noted that viral scaling is the opposite of forced
scaling, which includes misguided, top-down decisions by
policy-makers. What identifies viral scaling
is willing, active and independently-driven adoption by end users, e.g. teachers,
students and parents. Flipped Classroom
methodology may be seen as an example of a successful, viral innovation, while
Interactive (or ‘Inactive’) Whiteboards an example of misguided policy across
districts / authorities.
It is also worth
making two points about the Flipped Classroom, which should be kept in mind as we
move forward.
Firstly, the concept is far from new. Public schools in the UK and universities globally have set
pre-reading for centuries – for as long as they have existed, in fact. This
empowered students and teachers to spend their face-to-face time more
effectively, engaging in creative, reflective activities and discussions higher
up Bloom’s. The only real innovation in the modern Flipped Classroom movement is
that technology has been brought to bear in both the format and platform of
content delivery - so this is a new iteration of an existing effective
practice, rather than an entirely new concept (those are extremely rare).
Secondly, as Mal Lee
and Roger Broadie (2015) have noted, the research that proves the impact comes after
the innovation, not before. In the digital
age, it is the end users driving the change, not the researchers. This
necessitates an acceptance by all that risks must be taken and encouraged as
part of the culture of the organisation. The world is now moving too quickly
and the once safe option of waiting for researchers and policy-makers to inform
effective practice is no longer a viable approach for schools and organisations
looking to remain competitive and provide the best for their students and
stakeholders.
Is being replaced by:
See http://schoolevolutionarystages.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2015-Taxonomy-of-School-Evolutionary-Stages.pdf for more on this.
This, of course, makes
it essential that we build the capacity and culture for sustained innovation,
rather than simply looking at quick fixes/wins/stories. It is this culture that
will put organisations ahead and keep them viable. By definition, a cultural transformation
impacts and includes everyone and will be partly organic. We can, however,
genetically engineer this organic change, by implementing a clearly communicated
vision and strategy, visibly and continuously reinforced by all business and HR processes.
Viral adoption is a
good indicator of effective innovation, so we must empower the end users to
drive the process. This
empowerment must be an aim of all systems and working practices going forward
if schools and organisations are to ensure their future competitiveness and
effectiveness.
Assessing whether ‘the
new will become normal’, when driven by the end user, may be the key to
identifying future successful innovations.
No comments:
Post a Comment