Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.systematic-innovation.com
Given the fact that 98% of all innovation attempts end in failure, the Systematic Innovation team devotes a lot of time and effort to decoding why. For the last decade, we’ve divided the primary failure mechanisms according to the TRIZ Law of System Completeness. The thinking goes something like this: if innovation is an outcome of a system, then that system must contain a certain minimum number of elements. In the Classical TRIZ world, that number is 4. In our evolved – Stafford Beer, Viable System Model informed – model there are 6:
Knowing that a failed attempt is because of a poor (‘less ideal’) solution is relatively easy. Ditto four of the other five elements of the model. But establishing that a failure has occurred due to a failure of the measurement systems has been somewhat more problematic. Not least of the reasons being that most of our failure analyses are inherently conducted without inside knowledge of the particular innovation team tasked with delivering their project. Consequently, we’ve tended to publish failure breakdowns in the ‘easy’ five categories. – Corporations are having a tough time materializing results, they might need some help strategically and tactically on how to actually pull that off – just saying.