Acronym

Innovation evangelists out there might scoff at the notion of anything less than a fully permeating "culture of innovation" within an association. If you can get to that point, great, but as a general idea, it doesn't account for the reality of actual business decisions based on dollars and resources and returns.

I think this might perpetuate the mindset many have that innovation is only about exponential changes that costs mounds of cash and require uncommon brilliance. It's not, at least for me. I'll stand with Peter Drucker who once defined innovation as any change that increases value or performance.

Aren't we all simply trying to make things better for those we serve? Some times the change in value and performance will be huge and groundbreaking and other times it will be minor, yet still worthwhile. I'm quite happy nowadays that more and more product bags have Zip-lock style seals built right in.

We need to do all the things you say in your post not just in pursuit of the big innovations that might rock people's world, but the daily pebbles that each and every staff member and volunteer could (and should) advance in his/her respective efforts.

I think Walt Disney called it "plussing," getting all cast members to achieve +1 (a little better with every effort) in all their work producing an accumulated level of enhanced value and performance without requiring prohibitive levels of resources.

I started a post yesterday with a similar angle and actually published it this morning. (Like I said in it, we're once again on the same page!) Associations have to devote more time and resources to achieving forward-thinking goals. Baby steps are great - any step forward is a step in the right direction. The "Nothing new is allowed here, ever" mindset has to change, as well as the fear of doing away with programs that aren't successful anymore.
Great post, as always.

Hi Jeffrey,

I appreciated most "...the daily pebbles that each and every staff member and volunteer could (and should) advance in his/her respective efforts" from your response.

The point that innovative thinking belongs to each and every one of us, not just those with the highest titles or the biggest paychecks, is important to me.

Do we look at our current positions and think, "how could I make this better?" It makes life so much more fulfilling if we enable ourselves to say, "what if?" and then follow that up with action.

The changes don't have to be massive to be good. The focus on big ideas is positive, but we don't have to exclude the smaller good ideas from the discussion.

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

Jeffrey, I couldn't agree more with what you've said. You've just articulated it much better than I could. I, too, often find the call for innovation tied to big, sweeping ideas (perhaps we here at Acronym are somewhat guilty of contributing to this), so I think we both believe that small is good too. I think I just came at it from a different direction. If an association builds a culture that encourages small innovation across the board - "plussing," as you've mentioned - I think dedicating money to new projects is still helpful for the cases when new ideas are medium or large (i.e. require more resources or money to test and adopt).

"Anonymous" asks if people take the time to think "how could I make this better?" This has always been a quality I look for in people I like to work with. Even when it's as small as figuring out how to speed up a data-entry process or learning a shortcut in Microsoft Word. The people who are constantly looking for incremental improvements are the ones who eventually end up hitting on the big improvements.

This is a great post, highlighting that the default shouldn't be to innovate nothing. Too often, associations end up beating down all who suggest improvements. Perhaps this comes, in large part, from our volunteer leaders who protect pet projects from any threats. In a legislative leadership model, it is easier to stick with the known than to win over everyone for change. Perhaps a part of this is the long budgeting cycles that seem to be required to ensure broad buy-in, but that consistently lead to squeezing out the novel ideas. I like the idea of a fenced playground/incubator for new ideas, as you suggest. That way, we'd hopefully only need to fight the battle to include innovation funding once (to initiate the recurring fund). Anyone have examples of this working well?

I'm starting to blog about an experiement in association leadership and innovation over on The Hourglass Blog. What does innovation really mean for an association, and how does one go about creating innovative practices or a whole innovation culture? If interested, check out http://thehourglassblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/association-leadership-and-innovation.html for the first installment.

Hi Joe,
During tight economic times, many organizations are reluctant to risk trying new ideas. They simply want to maintain. Sadly, in the area of publications (from blogs to articles to magazines to books), which members demand, exploring in new directions seems frightening and expensive.
Using money to test ideas is a great idea, but an organization must be willing to lose it if the idea doesn't pan out--not justify the money spent with wishful thinking. It is hard to know what to pursue and when to pull the plug! Some great ideas don't catch on immediately.
As organizations struggle between testing and investing, there are additional questions they should ask:
1. What are the consequences if an idea is tested and abandoned?
2. What is the process of nurturing new ideas?
3. And, most critically, what is the decision-making process for approving new directions (beyond the budget considerations that Robert mentions)?
From creatively serving over 200 organizations, the ones that are best at bringing forth new ideas have decisive leadership with an idea champion in the ranks who brings resources to the creative team--not from staff--but from members who wield influence and power.
Dedicating time, budget, and staff doesn't "mitigate risk." The more invested in testing, the more reluctance there will be to fatally pull the plug upon any disappointment. Although fear and risk come with all new ideas, I believe the "protective bubble" that you seek through a culture of innovation resides first in the decision-makers. To further mitigate risk and ensure development support, new ideas must have one or both of these roots:
1. Membership request and support.
2. Leadership derived from a deep understanding of industry needs and behavior.
Creativity applied to business is both an art and a science. Though there is no crystal ball, there is a safety net through visionary concepts, leadership to recognize promising ideas, and planned development.
Liane Sebastian, designer, editor, and author, www.wisdomofwork.wordpress.com