Below I have summarized the typical view and the way I would like to see the relative importance of each characteristic rated.
As you can see, the traditional approach creates a "point allocation" that spreads the importance over 100 points. I believe that the next generation community of analytic practitioners will follow the skewed approach I explain in the table. Here's why:
To me, the traditional view signifies a big obstacle to successful innovation. A while ago, I came across an article in Forbes, “Move Over Entrepreneurs, Here Come the Intrapreneurs,” by David Armano of Edelman, that touches on the cultural imperative I have articulated. One of the things Armano says is that intrapreneurs “want to be on the front lines of change.” How can change occur in an environment where expertise, structure, and process are each only a few steps away in terms of importance from culture? Change is often very difficult, as these other organizational characteristics can often stifle a culture. Expertise, structure, and process are applauded, while the culture is actually what needs to be emphasized so that employees can explore new ideas and break away from the standard way of working.
Ever have a partner express interest in your project but then warn against discussing the matter with other specific members of the organization? It is certainly understandable if doing so would jeopardize the project because politics, misinformation, and egos would sully a good idea. But why does this happen? It does not have to be this way.
Another frequent complaint I have heard in the context of implementing projects is that new ideas need to go through certain channels and processes to get anywhere. Often it seems that people are upset that good sense and innovation are stifled by rigid structures and processes – and on such a big scale that it is incredibly difficult to fix. So, what do they do? They don’t try to fix it. They bypass it. They use secrecy instead of transparency. They engage in politics to protect from other project-killing politics. That doesn’t seem right, now, does it?
So, is this “next generation” view of the organizational quadrants – culture, process, structure, and expertise – starting to make more sense now?
Take a look at your organization. How important are each of these quadrants in your organization right now? What value would you assign to each? If there is a disconnect between what you want your company to be and what you are, that’s okay. If you realize where you need to go, that is a step in the right direction.