Killer Innovations with Phil McKinney

Sandra Howe, an award-winning technology expert, joins us to discuss the effectiveness of pairing good timing with collaboration. The need for innovators willing to work with each other rather than against is progressing. Thanks to the swiftly changing technology market. The necessity for broadband internet is ever-increasing, especially in recent years, due to people’s increased need for it during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the elasticity of the industry, Sandra stresses the importance of having a hub of innovators to discuss key aspects of leadership, standards, and new technologies. Experimentation and Adaptability The difference between a good idea and a great idea is rarely the idea but rather the timing. Companies often choose the wrong time to release new products or services. Poor timing can be detrimental to a good idea. Paired with having the right timing is engaging in effective collaboration. Having a good team or partnership to discuss and adequately vet an idea or product through trials and experimentation is vital. Using these trials to learn what adjustments need to be made or how consumers react is critical for success. Sandy says that the best way to prepare for the unexpected is to perform trials, listen to consumers, and make the necessary adjustments based on the findings. Being persistent and taking the time to listen goes a long way. Being able to adapt quickly is critical in the changing market. With the constantly changing market, it is incredibly challenging for companies to stay ahead of the curve. Sandra advises innovators to keep things simple, listen to consumers, and be willing to adjust to their demands. About our Guest: Sandra Howe Sandra Howe currently serves as an Independent Director on the Minim board of directors, as well as the Chair of The WICT Network Global Board, the board of directors for NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, and the board of the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) Foundation as an advisor on the investment committee. Sandra is also a former Technetix EVP. Sandy graduated from Pennsylvania State University and has received numerous industry awards: Cable TV Pioneers, Multichannel News’ Wonder Woman, CableFAX’s Top Women in Technology, The WICT Network Carolinas Carol A. Hevey Leadership Award, and NAMIC Carolinas EPIC in Technology. To know more about innovation timing and collaboration, listen to: Sandra Howe on Innovation Timing and Collaboration. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

Benchmarking is the comparing of your organization to others to measure your performance and possibly identify areas for improvement. It has been common practice since the early 1900s. Frederick Taylor, an American mechanical engineer, is credited with coining the term “benchmarking” in his book, The Principles of Scientific Management. Benchmarking enables continuous learning and improvement by identifying those that are having an impact and change and following them. These learnings and improvements can nurture the innovation success of your organization. Benchmarking helps you understand how you compare to others in your industry, making it easier to identify the best practices. For example, benchmarking enables you to identify the companies that use the best technology, the fastest production time, or the lowest costs. Whatever the measurement of success you define in your benchmarking activities, a benchmarking study can help an organization's managers make strategic decisions. It may also provide some insights into where to allocate your corporate resources. A common part of the data that gets collected in benchmarking is headcount. All kinds of weird metrics come out of this, such as dollars per revenue. While this is all good, there are also some challenges that we're going to discuss. In general, benchmarking could prove useful in business units where benchmarking data reveals which competitors are performing better than others. However, before benchmarking, you must first conduct research to know who to benchmark against. You want to benchmark peers that are similar to you. You don't want something unrelated, such as comparing a software company to a steel manufacturer. You want something similar. Similar peers could be in the same industry, have similar sizes, or they could be selling and servicing in a consistent geographic area. It can be tempting to say we want to be more like Silicon Valley. If a restaurant in Milwaukee benchmarked itself against the leading companies in Silicon Valley such as Apple, Google, or HP, that comparison would be meaningless. Benchmarking Failures Benchmarking has been around for quite some time, and it has some strong benefits, but there are bad that can come from benchmarking as well. The key here is that benchmarking can have negative consequences if done wrong. For example, if you benchmark against peers who are poorly chosen, it is not going to work. This can lead to bad decision-making and can destroy organizations. Therefore, it is important to handpick your benchmark peers to get accurate insights. For example, in the late 90s and early 2000s, MCI WorldCom, a major telecom company in the United States, was reporting results far better than any of its peers. AT&T and others attempted to benchmark themselves to find out how MCI could have a such standout performance. This resulted in the industry changing its strategies and its investment models to chase the MCI WorldCom results. While their competitors tried to play catch up, MCI WorldCom continued to report surprising results. That is until authorities revealed that MCI WorldCom was practicing fraudulent accounting practices. They overshowed the revenue streams, and they misallocated expenses to make their results look good. People had made decisions based on a benchmark against somebody who looked like they were performing outstandingly. To compete with how MCI was performing, they changed how they operated. MCI WorldCom eventually went bankrupt, but AT&T survived unscathed. They had size, scale, and all the capabilities. However, others in the industry got trapped in the benchmark. They made bad decisions, just like a company that I was at called Teligent. I was one of the original five founders of Teligent, and we got wrapped up in it. We were a competitive local exchange carrier, or what was called a CLEC at the time. We looked at MCI’s results and wondered how they were able to deliver those kinds of results. We made decisions to try to drive a performance level the same as MCI WorldCom. Eventually, Teligent ended up in bankruptcy, but I was long gone at this point. Because Wall Street was pounding on every telecom company in the industry to reach those same-level results, fast-paced innovation was essential. People made bad decisions because of a bad benchmark, and that bad benchmark was a result of fraud. The Benchmark Trap As a leader, whatever your role may be, odds are one of the big four consulting firms have either approached you, your CEO, or your board of directors to do an innovation benchmark on your organization. If not, count yourself lucky. If you have done an innovation benchmark, you know the nightmare this can cause for your organization. These engagements are all about comparing how an organization's innovations compare to each other’s innovation processes, approach, culture, etc. But why has this become such a hot consulting offer? Leaders in most organizations are feeling very uncertain about innovation. This may be due to their lack of ability to come up with new ideas, or because of their historical inability to implement new ideas successfully. An organization may be able to come up with an idea, but most organizations historically struggle with making those ideas real. How big of a problem is this and what are the consultants zeroing in on? There was a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit that found that only 38% of executives said their organization was, “very good at turning innovative ideas into commercial success”. When these kinds of studies come out, consultants are all over it. They quickly create a consulting service to ‘fix the problem’. The problem is that only 38% of executives feel very good about their ability to turn innovative ideas into commercial success. When leaders benchmark their innovative approach to others, they're trying to benchmark themselves out of uncertainty and into comfort. They're uncertain because they aren't doing very well. They want to see how other people do it which causes them to try to copy the 38% to be successful. This is part of what I refer to as the benchmark trap. A single organization’s benchmarking engagement does not stand on its own because you don't benchmark against yourself. If you benchmark your organization's ability to turn out new ideas into commercial success, you are also benchmarking the quality of your peers who have been benchmarked before. You have to have somebody to benchmark against. This is the service that consultants sell. If you’re company A, and consultants have done a benchmark for Company B or Company C, they’ll do a comparison so you can determine how well you stack up. Leaders are looking for ways to stack themselves up, so they feel comfortable. However, when you benchmark yourself against competitors or industry best practices, the results will be that you become exactly like them in terms of innovation performance. When you benchmark, you're either trying to compare yourself or you're adopting what is viewed as their best practice to you. This drives everybody in the industry to converge towards the mean in results. You're not going to be the leader. You're going to be me too. It's one of the things I always hated when I was in one of the big six consulting firms. I used to run the telecom consulting practice at Computer Sciences Corporation back in the early 90s. One of the things that we sold was benchmarking, but we also did process reengineering, consulting work, etc. We pushed on this concept of benchmarking, and I traveled all around the world and did these benchmarks. While you're selling it to the leaders, the leaders, therefore, get comfortable because they've got a document they can put in front of their board of directors, investors, or shareholders to show they’re just as good or better. As more and more companies within an industry or area focus on benchmarking and adopting best practices, everybody starts to look the same. If Company A has a best practice on innovation, and everybody copies that best practice, assuming that you can copy someone's best practice and be just as effective, you all start to look the same. I think best practices are the stupidest concept ever invented. Over my years of talking companies into doing best practices, I've seen the impact. It makes everybody average, and everybody looks the same. There is no ability to have to stand-up performance when you've adopted the same practices, approach, and strategies as everybody else. No matter how high or how low your original benchmark is, you may have been an absolute leader in sales or innovation if you hadn’t followed other’s benchmarks. The Dangers of Comparison and Comfort Innovation in benchmarking can be a powerful tool. It can bring benefits when done correctly. But it can also lead companies astray if it's not handled correctly. Let’s discuss some of the consequences of innovation benchmarking. Firstly, leaders run unnecessary risks trying to replicate the benchmark results exactly. We find areas where somebody else is better than us which causes us to want to replicate and adapt it. Why is this a problem? Because benchmarking typically involves leaders looking for insights and inspiration from benchmarking peers. The benchmarking experience is often oversimplified down to exactly what people did, how they did it, when they did it, etc. If they don't, it's a black box. It's oversimplified, and it's not enough detail to where you can duplicate it. We tend to focus on why they did all these different things. Firstly, you don't have all the details, because there are things inherently behind the scenes, and secondly, you’re thinking it's a formula. As a result, this can lead companies to take unwarranted financial, strategic, or organizational risks. When you're trying to replicate the benchmark experience of a peer, that experience is often unique to the peer. There's a lot of history in an organization that is not captured in the benchmarking activity. Be careful when leaders run unnecessary risks trying to capture the magic formula of an innovation benchmark. The second consequence is that leaders may benchmark themselves out of uncertainty and into comfort without realizing it. When leaders take benchmarking too far, it leads to what I call the comfort trap. Leaders can miss new opportunities and threats that emerge in the market when they unknowingly benchmark themselves into comfort. While you are looking for insights from your peers, it's important to keep in mind that what works for them, may not work best for your organization. You may have a unique value proposition, a different competitive environment, different costs, or brand equity. Be careful you don’t cherry-pick those things that either make you look the same or slightly better, but no worse than your competitors. The third consequence is that leaders benchmark their competitors rather than taking a fresh look at their innovation approach. This is probably the one that frustrates me the most. I get calls all the time from people who read my book or who have taken the innovation bootcamp, asking why it's not working for them. Be careful, take, what somebody else is doing in the innovation approach is not something you can replicate. They failed to take a fresh look at their innovation approach. They fall into the trap of comparing themselves to others who are not their innovation peers. You want to understand and find people who are innovating, that are similar to you, and not to duplicate or replicate, but adapt to what would work for your organization and your culture. If you're just looking to copy somebody else's innovation process, it will lead to bad decision-making that can destroy your organization. When you benchmark your competition, whether, from other industries, geographies, size, scale, etc., you automatically compare yourself to others who have been successful in completely different strategies for innovation success than yours. Attempting to imitate them will lead to failure. Example: Picking the Wrong Peer Here’s a personal example to drive the message home. When I was CTO at HP, the CEO, Mark Hurd, had a quote that was ingrained in everything the executive team did. “If you stare at the numbers long enough, they will eventually confess”. Mark established a culture he referred to as “extreme benchmarking”. This required every leader at HP to know the key benchmark metrics for each competitor and to have a plan to meet or beat the competitor's benchmark results. There was a lot of pressure from the benchmark numbers being compared to your competitors. If your numbers were not better than theirs, then you weren't running your part of the business appropriately. You had to be prepared to answer a question from Mark, walking down the hall asking, “what were the last quarter's benchmark results for XYZ competitor? And how and what is our current?” It was insane. The result was more than a few poor business decisions on the part of HP. One example that I was directly involved in was the cutting of HP’s investment in innovation and R&D, to match the spending of our Asia Pacific-based competitors. Now, to give you some context, HP was spending roughly 3% of product revenue in the PC group on R&D. This included both consumer and commercial business products. To compare, Apple was spending about 9% of product revenue in the R&D group. The peer that Mark was forcing us to compare against, in our Asia Pacific base competitors, was spending 0.8% of product revenue on R&D. There was constant pressure to cut resources or move things like engineering offshore to get the benchmark closer to our peer. And let me tell you, the pressure was intense. This is the perfect example of picking the wrong peer. In the case of all my conversations with Mark Hurd, it was all about this Asia Pacific competitor. I wanted three times the R&D budget so that I could compete with Apple. That was my logical argument. Mark wanted 3% of my revenue on R&D spent down to less than 1%. I pushed back hard on this approach. My one regret was not pushing back even harder or finding a way to convince Mark and others of the folly of this approach. Now you would think with my role and personal passion for innovation, I would have been able to figure this out. Nope, I failed, and it is one of the few regrets from my time as CTO at HP. Now, whenever someone says the word benchmark, my antenna goes up. Whenever you are thinking about doing any kind of comparison, understand the context of the information. Ask yourself if that somebody or thing is a good comparison. I spent almost 10 years in one of the big six consulting houses convincing others to do benchmarks. I've been on the other side of the table, and I'll be the first to admit, that was bad advice. Given it was the most popular advice, it was the advice everybody was giving at the time. In reality, you cannot just duplicate what somebody else is doing. You have to deeply understand the context behind what you are attempting to benchmark against. Conclusion The best way to avoid falling into the innovation benchmark trap is not to benchmark for benchmark’s sake. Instead of getting caught in this trap, learn from your peers. Don't assume that what worked for them will work for you. You need to have some discernment as to what would work and what to ignore. If you follow blindly, your organization will become average, or worse, will be destroyed. Instead, look at what your peers are doing and ask yourself two questions: “Why are they innovating that way?” and “what can we learn from that approach?”. It is critical to get inside the mind of your innovation peer that you've identified and understand their thought process and discern what of their approach is worth you're experimenting with. Don't adopt at wholesale, find the elements that work and experiment with them. Otherwise, your organization may drive itself right off the innovation cliff.   To know more about innovation benchmarking, listen to: Most Downloaded Show of 2022 – Innovation Benchmarking RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

Innovation is often lauded as the key to success in business. After all, staying ahead of the competition is hard if you're not constantly coming up with new ideas and ways to improve your products or services. But is every idea you come up with a good thing? Is there such a thing as being too innovative? To keep yourself honest, you may consider appointing a devil's advocate. The Devil's Advocate is a popular movie from the 1990s that tells the story of a lawyer hired to argue against a candidate for a high-ranking position in the Vatican. The lawyer's job is to poke holes in the candidate's qualifications and to find any dirt that might disqualify him. While the movie is fictional, the idea of a Devil's Advocate is accurate, and it's something that companies sometimes use when considering new ideas. The aim is to have someone whose job is to argue against the proposed idea, to improve the idea by making sure that all potential problems with it are discussed and addressed. Definition of a Devil's Advocate The term “Devil's Advocate” comes from the Catholic Church. In canonization, the process of declaring someone a saint, there is a Devil's Advocate (advocatus diaboli) whose job is to argue against the candidate's sainthood. If the Devil's Advocate can't find anything wrong with the candidate, they probably deserve sainthood. Why Companies Use Devil's Advocates There are a few reasons companies might use Devil's Advocates. First, it can help to prevent groupthink. When people work on a project together, they quickly get caught up in thinking that their idea is great and should be implemented immediately. Devil's Advocates can help to forestall this by giving other people a chance to voice their objections and to point out any potential problems with an idea. Second, it can help to ensure that all the stakeholders are on board with a decision. When considering a new idea, getting input from all affected is essential. The Devil's Advocate can help ensure everyone's concerns are considered before deciding. Third, it can help to ensure that a decision is well-reasoned and thought out. When you're considering a new idea, it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of it and start thinking about all of the ways it could be successful. But it's also important to consider all of the ways that it could fail. The Devil's Advocate can help to ensure that you're thinking about both the potential positives and negatives of a decision before making it. The Drawbacks There are a few potential drawbacks to using Devil's Advocates. First, it can lead to decision paralysis. If you're considering a new idea and you have someone whose job is to shoot it down, it's easy to get caught up in all the potential problems and never actually decide to go forward or kill it. Second, it can frustrate the people who are working on the project. If you're constantly being shot down by someone whose job is to find fault with your ideas, it can start feeling like your work is never good enough. Third, it can lead to a negative work environment. If people feel they can't share their ideas without being shot down, they may stop sharing them altogether. This can lead to a work environment where people are afraid to take risks, and new ideas never get a chance to be heard. Overall, there are positive and negative aspects to using Devil's Advocates. It's essential to weigh the pros and cons before deciding whether to use them on a project. How To Properly Use a Devil's Advocate If you decide to use a Devil's Advocate on a project, there are a few things that you should keep in mind. First, it's essential to make sure that everyone understands the role of the Devil's Advocate. The person identified as playing this role should not be trying to kill the idea outright; their goal should be to ensure all potential problems with it are considered. Second, giving the Devil's Advocate enough time to do their job is essential. If you're considering a new idea, you shouldn't shoot it down as soon as someone objects. Take the time to view all the objections and to see if any valid points need to be addressed. Third, it's essential to make sure that the decision-makers are the ones who ultimately decide. The Devil's Advocate can provide valuable input, but they shouldn't be the ones making the final decision. That should be left to the people responsible for implementing the idea. Devil's Advocate as A Passive Aggressive Response When someone starts a statement with “I'm just playing Devil's Advocate,” it is usually a sign that they are about to say something that they know will be controversial. It's a way of trying to distance themselves from the idea in a passive-aggressive way. The problem with this approach is that it rarely leads to productive discussion. The individual will raise objections to an idea, but instead of providing constructive criticism, they will nitpick and try to find fault with everything. The effect is to shut down the conversation because people feel like they are being attacked. It can also make the person playing Devil's Advocate look like they are just trying to be difficult for the sake of it. If you find yourself in discussion with someone playing Devil's Advocate, remind them the role is formal; if they volunteer for it, they need to play by the rules. If they are trying to be contrarian, close down the conversation. 10 Rules for the Devil's Advocate Being the Devil's Advocate can feel like being on a debate team. In debate, you are given a position and must argue for it, even if you disagree. The same is true of being a Devil's Advocate; you have to be willing to take on the role and argue for the other side, even if you disagree. Here are ten rules that will help you be a better Devil's Advocate: Present an argument against a proposal or idea without necessarily believing in that argument. Identify and explore potential problems and objections to a proposal or idea to improve it. Provide alternative perspectives and challenge assumptions. Force people to think about an issue from all sides and consider all options. Encourage critical thinking and healthy debate. Ensure that all ideas are given a fair hearing before making a decision. Act as a check against groupthink, where people agree with the majority opinion. Be open-minded and objective without being wedded to any particular position. See both sides of an argument and understand different points of view. Be willing to change their position if the evidence or arguments presented are compelling enough. Examples of How Devil Advocates Are Used Over the years, many organizations have leveraged the idea of a devil's advocate to improve their decision-making processes. For example, the U.S. military has long used Devil's Advocates to help improve their decision-making. Before a new policy is implemented, they assign someone the role of Devil's Advocate, and their job is to find any potential problems with the procedure. This helps to ensure that they consider the potential risks before they decide. Another example of an industry that uses devil advocates is journalism. They are used to making sure they consider all sides of a story before it is published. This helps to ensure accuracy and avoid any potential libel issues. The legal profession also uses devil advocates. Lawyers will use them to consider all the potential arguments that could be made against their case. This helps to ensure they are prepared for anything that could happen in court. Final Thoughts Just as a church provides a place for people to come together to learn, discuss, debate, and think, so does the Devil's Advocate give space to discuss, discuss, and critically think about an idea. The Devil's Advocate can help improve an organization's efforts by ensuring that all options are considered before any decisions are made. To know more about devil's advocates, listen to: The Devil's Advocate: Is it Good for Innovation? RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

Here is the last interview from my time at the Cable Tec-Expo Show in Philadelphia. Collin Howlett, the CTO of Vecima, joins us to discuss the acceleration of innovation in the cable industry. Predicting the future grows more challenging as the pace of innovation accelerates. Customers are deploying innovations at faster speeds than ever. Most cable operators are now mobile operators, with their focus fixed on fiber. At CableLabs, we are showing coherent optics at 50,000 gigs over a single strand. While this mind-blowing capacity may not be needed now, it will no doubt be in the future. Hardware to Software With the pace of the broadband industry increasing, necessary transitions are occurring. Engineers must develop a different skill set as the network transitions from hardware to software. This is leading to a shortage of people who understand both software and hardware. Collin emphasized the importance of knowing where to put certain parts of the technology while understanding the software and hardware division. Some hardware has been out there for 30 years, and the companies that created it are now gone. It is valuable to build generic hardware that can be developed over time. It’s vital to make a software from a modular perspective. Many of the technologies deployed today will significantly affect our predecessors. We must think about the unintended consequences of our innovations. Collin believes organizations must consider their innovation’s effects at least 10-15 years into the future. Innovation Culture Collin’s team at Vecima likes to follow what’s happening in other industries, identify what they can take from those industries, and apply them to their own. Due to the pace of innovation, concepts and prototypes need to be spun out much faster than in the past. Decisions need to be made quickly. Collin said it is also important not to get emotionally tied to what you are working on. Being able to pivot rapidly to the next innovation is vital. Automation and AI Many brilliant engineers of our day are retiring, and the question becomes, “How do you capture that expertise?” Collin believes there is value in automating the development of technologies and low-level work through machine learning and AI. While we can capture everything, this could be a way to help bridge the skills gap as we advance. The bottom line is if innovators are not applying machine learning today, they will be left behind. About our Guest: Collin Howlett Colin Howlett is the Chief Technology Officer, joining Vecima in 1997. He is responsible for defining the overall technology strategy at Vecima. He leads a group of product architects who work directly with customers to determine the next generation of Vecima products. Colin has been an active participant in industry standards development within CableLabs and the WiMAX Forum and is currently actively involved in D3.1 and D4.40 initiatives at CableLabs. He holds multiple patents related to his work in cable broadband access systems at Vecima. Colin has a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree and a Bachelor of Computer Science degree from the University of Saskatchewan.

A few weeks back, I wrote an opinion piece for The Innovators Network titled, Innovation Hero Worship: FTX, Theranos, and the Media. The core of the article is my belief that the media has a responsibility to not feed into the hero worship of innovation leaders. But there is more to the recent high-profile innovation failures than just the hero worship of founders and CEOs. The announcement of the bankruptcy of FTX and the sentencing of the founder and CEO of Theranos to over 11 years in jail for fraud begs us to look more deeply at the underlying issue of irresponsible innovation. What do I mean by irresponsible innovation? The definition is a bit nebulous and open to interpretation, but generally, it is an innovation that is done with little or no concern for the potential negative consequences of the innovation. In a recent study, most leaders and informed citizens believe that the potential negative impact of an innovation is not something that is ever considered. In their minds, most innovation is irresponsible innovation. There are 5 key contributors to irresponsible innovation: First, there is a failure to consider and improve upon the consequences of an innovation. With innovation, it's important to consider all aspects of the consequences. This includes the positive and negative effects that innovation will have on society. By failing to consider and improve upon the consequences of an innovation, businesses and governments can inadvertently cause more harm than good. Second, there is a lack of accountability and responsibility in the innovation process. Businesses and governments must be accountable for their actions. This means that they must be willing to take responsibility for the negative impacts their innovations may have on society. Without this level of accountability and responsibility, businesses and governments are failing to act in a socially responsible manner. This accountability also needs to include the executives involved. Third, ethical standards are absent when it comes to innovation. Ethics are important in any field, but it is quickly becoming increasingly important in innovation. Businesses and governments must set ethical standards and adhere to them. Without these standards, there is a risk that innovation will lead to greater negative outcomes. Fourth, there is often a lack of transparency and communication about the risks and benefits of innovation. Innovators and entrepreneurs must be transparent and honest about the risks and benefits of their innovations. This includes providing realistic information about how innovation may affect society, as well as any potential solutions for mitigating negative effects. Fifth, there is often a focus on the financial returns of innovation rather than on balancing its societal impact. It's important for businesses, governments, and investors (e.g. venture capitalists) to consider the broader societal impact of their innovations. This means that financial returns should not be the sole focus. We should evaluate both the financial return and impact based on the innovations' potential to improve or harm society. “Just as a car needs both the accelerator and the brake, responsible innovation requires both pushing boundaries and considering the consequences.” Intentional Versus Accidental Not all negative effects are intentional. Sometimes, innovation can hurt society as a result of unintended consequences. Intentional irresponsible innovation happens when companies knowingly take risks and create negative social outcomes. A recent example is Facebook’s conscious decision to prioritize engagement and growth over user privacy. Accidental irresponsible innovation occurs when companies lack the necessary knowledge or resources to fully consider the consequences of an innovation. Unfortunately, these types of mistakes can lead to serious consequences. A recent example is the Uber driverless car that killed a pedestrian. Consequences of Irresponsible Innovation The consequences of irresponsible innovation can be severe and far-reaching. Organizations that fail to consider the potential social impacts of their innovations risk creating serious problems. These could include financial losses, public distrust, and even legal liability. Financial Financial losses due to irresponsible innovation are not just limited to shareholders and investors but can also have consequences on the wider economy. For example, when FTX went bankrupt, it hurt the entire market. Legal and Ethical We must also consider that irresponsible innovation can have serious legal and ethical implications, as seen in the case of Theranos. In this scenario, both investors and consumers were misled about the efficacy of a product and the company, along with the founder, was found guilty of fraud. Public Distrust of Innovation Finally, we must consider that irresponsible innovation can lead to public distrust of innovation. This could mean that people are less likely to embrace new technologies and products, leading to slower economic growth and development. What Can You Do? We must all work together to create a framework for responsible innovation that considers the potential consequences of our innovations and work towards creating a better future for everyone. This will require a firm commitment from all stakeholders to consider the potential consequences of their work. This includes companies, governments, citizens, and the media. Companies Companies must be proactive in identifying and mitigating any negative impacts of their innovations. They must also be willing to take responsibility for these impacts, even if they are not directly responsible for them. How? Articulate the goals and values that will guide responsible innovation Educate the entire team on responsible innovation Invest in tools and processes to measure, monitor, and mitigate the risks of irresponsible innovation Gather input from stakeholders to ensure their perspectives are taken into account Identify potential negative effects of the innovation and develop plans to mitigate them Communicate the plans to stakeholders, customers, and citizens with transparency Governments Governments must create a framework for responsible innovation that considers the potential societal consequences of new technologies and products. This framework should encourage others to act responsibly and provide guidance on how to do so. How? Make responsible innovation part of government policy Consult stakeholders to ensure their perspectives are taken into account Develop policies and regulations that promote responsible innovation Provide incentives for companies to act responsibly and penalize those who don't Monitor compliance with the framework Citizens Citizens must be willing to ask questions about the consequences of innovations and hold all stakeholders accountable for their actions. We must also be open to change, accepting that not all innovations are good and that we need to weigh the costs and benefits of each carefully. How? Ask questions about the expected pacts from an innovation Educate yourself on responsible innovation and be aware of potential negative consequences Advocate for responsible innovation where possible Take part in dialogues with stakeholders to ensure your perspective is considered Support companies, governments, and other stakeholders that are making positive strides toward responsible innovation Media And let's not leave out the role of the media. The press needs to provide accurate, objective reporting on the consequences and impacts of innovations. This is essential for informing citizens and holding companies and governments accountable. How? Provide accurate, objective, and completereporting on innovations Investigate potential negative impacts of new technologies and products Highlight companies or governments that are making positive strides toward responsible innovation Ask questions to ensure all stakeholders are taking responsibility for the consequences of their work Give a voice to citizens who are being affected by irresponsible innovation Examples of Irresponsible Innovations Here are some recent examples of high-profile failures from irresponsible innovations and the lessons learned from each. Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica data scandal: This incident highlighted the importance of data privacy and security, as well as the need for companies to be transparent about how they use customer data. Volkswagen’s emissions-cheating scandal: This case showed how important it is for governments to have strong policies and regulations in place to ensure companies are following the law. Uber’s surge pricing during disasters: This incident showed the need for companies to be aware of their social responsibility when setting prices, and to consider their impact on citizens who are already in vulnerable circumstances. Conclusion Irresponsible innovation can have serious consequences. It's important to take steps toward creating a more responsible system of innovation to avoid potential negative outcomes in the future. Responsible innovation is becoming an essential part of creating a positive future for everyone. If we make sure that businesses and governments take the time to consider the outcomes of their actions, are held accountable for them, and stick to ethical standards when coming up with new ideas, it will be possible to build a more dependable system of innovation. To put it simply, responsible innovation is about considering the human implications of any innovation advancement and striving to make sure that those implications are understood, communicated, and addressed. If we want to make a real difference in the world, responsible innovation must be a priority for everyone. To know more about irresponsible innovation, listen to: Irresponsible Innovation. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

This is the third interview from my time at the Cable Tec-Expo Show in Philadelphia. Asaf Matatyaou, the VP of Solutions and Product Management for the Cable Access Business at Harmonic, joins us to discuss AI, data, and innovation culture. Consumer expectations have considerably shifted due to the impact of COVID-19. As a result, the reliability of network connectivity has become paramount. Power usage is another area brought to the forefront of innovation. The cable industry is heavily focused on reducing power usage while improving speed. Green initiatives and power saving, especially with the rising electricity costs, have become motivating areas for today's innovators. Network Virtualization The network is moving from traditional proprietary silicone and hardware stacks into software. As a result, running the network now requires different capabilities. As the cable industry steps into this transition, it is essential to get those with experience comfortable while also allowing them to utilize the newest technologies. AI Automation and the Value Creation of Data Finding the role of AI within networks to create reliability tends to be tricky. One group thinks AI is the most significant new thing, while others think it's evil and dangerous. Asaf believes that there is an excellent opportunity for implementing AI in terms of scale. To unlock this opportunity, organizations must be confident and prove they are getting the correct data. Secondly, they need the right actions for that data. Lastly, they need to train that data continuously. Many organizations overlook the quality of the data they are capturing. When Harmonic started, they put money into every bit of data they could. Over time, they realized the importance of filtering out non-valuable data. It is key to figuring out what data you need, what you can do with it, and how frequently you need it. I believe that if organizations are not thinking of applying AI to their innovations, they will be left behind. Innovation Culture & Collaboration Harmonic collaborates with its customers to pinpoint their desired focus areas and provide actionable solutions. Internally, Harmonic prioritizes having an innovation culture. The organization's leaders encourage experimentation at every level and don't shy away from failure. Every year, they host a two-day ‘Hackathon,' allowing anyone in the organization to develop new ideas. They offer prizes for the top ideas and even implement some ideas into their solutions. To those who have an idea and don't know what to do with it, Asaf has a simple message: Don't waste time talking about it. Just do it, and then learn from it. Fail and then achieve. Check out Asaf's LinkedIn here. Check out Harmonic's website here. About our Guest: Asaf Matatyaou Asaf Matatyaou is Vice President of Solutions and Product Management for the Cable Access Business at Harmonic. Asaf is responsible for product management, strategy, and solution architectures in this role, including Harmonic's virtual cable access solution, CableOS®. Asaf has 20+ years of experience as an engineer and executive in the cable industry, including roles where he led the development of CMTS products and helped drive industry specifications. Asaf earned his BS degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of California, Davis. To know more about Asaf Matatyaou and Harmonic, listen to: Asaf Matatyaou of Harmonic on Innovation Culture and AI. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

Humans have always been thinkers. From the time early humans began to communicate, they used their brains to figure out how to survive and thrive. Over the years, humans have continued to use their brains to solve problems and create new things. To do this, humans have had to learn to think differently. Interestingly, humans are not the only animals that think. Ravens, for example, are known for being very clever birds. They can solve problems and even use tools. However, humans still outrank all other animals regarding their thinking ability. This is mainly because humans can think abstractly. We can imagine things that don't exist and come up with solutions to problems that don't have straightforward answers. Human versus Computers With thinking, humans and computers have similarities and significant differences. Both humans and computers can solve problems. Although humans are better at abstract thinking, computers are better at logical thinking. Computers can come up with ideas based on logic and data, but they cannot come up with totally new and original ideas. One thing that will always set humans apart from machines is our ability to think creatively and come up with new solutions to problems. Thinking Styles There are two fundamental ways humans think: convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking is focused and goal-oriented. It is suitable for solving problems that have a single correct answer. Most people think in a convergent way most of the time because our schools and workplaces reward people who come up with the one right answer. However, to innovate and create, we need people who can think in divergent ways. Divergent thinking is more open-ended and exploratory. It is good for solving problems that have multiple correct answers. We often use this thinking in creative professions, where people are encouraged to develop new and innovative ideas. Both convergent and divergent thinking are essential. The best way to solve a problem is to use both types of thinking together. Start by using divergent thinking to explore different possibilities to develop new and innovative ideas. Then, by using convergent thinking, you can narrow down your options and find the best solution. Convergent Thinking Convergent thinking is a problem-solving approach that involves generating one correct solution to a problem and creating action plans. Characteristics of Convergent Thinking There are several characteristics of convergent thinking. First, it is logical and systematic. This means that convergent thinkers approach problems step-by-step, analyzing all the data before coming to a conclusion. Second, they are analytical. They like to break down problems into smaller parts so that they can understand them better. Third, they are objective. They make decisions based on facts and data, not emotions or personal opinions. Finally, they are decisive. They know what they want, and they go after it aggressively. Limitations of Convergent Thinking While convergent thinking is an important skill, it has some limitations. First, it can be rigid and inflexible. They often have trouble adapting to new situations or changing their minds once they have made a decision. Second, it can be restrictive. They often focus too much on the details and lose sight of the bigger picture. And finally, it can be boring. It can be repetitive and unchallenging, leading to stagnation and a lack of creativity. Divergent Thinking Humans need people with divergent thinking skills to create and innovate. Divergents think outside of the box and come up with many possible solutions for a problem instead of one good idea like convergent thinkers do; they explore all angles to find something new or different about any given situation which can lead them down paths not taken by others before – essential if we want our world's progress made quickly enough! Characteristics of Divergent Thinking There are several characteristics of divergent thinking. First, it is creative. Divergent thinkers think outside the box and come up with ideas that no one else has thought of before. Second, it is flexible. Divergent thinkers can adapt quickly to new situations and change their minds when necessary. Third, it is open-minded. Divergent thinkers are willing to consider different points of view and explore alternate solutions. And fourth, it is challenging. Divergent thinking can be frustrating because it involves taking risks and stepping out of your comfort zone. Limitations of Divergent Thinking While divergent thinking is essential for innovation, it has its own set of limitations. First, it can be disorganized. Divergent thinkers often have trouble staying focused on one task or goal. Second, it can be undisciplined. Divergent thinkers may start projects but never finish them because they get sidetracked easily. And finally, it can be chaotic. Divergent thinking can lead to confusion and may not always result in a clear solution. Need More Divergent Thinkers Since convergent thinking is the most common form of thinking, we need to expand our thinking styles by building up divergent thinkers. The first step in improving your divergent thinking skills is understanding the different types of divergent thinking. There are ideators, connectors, and analogizers. Ideators come up with a lot of ideas, connectors connect ideas, and analogizers see similarities between ideas. You need to practice and be proficient in all three types to improve your divergent thinking skills. The Ideator To be a successful divergent thinker, you need to be an ideator — the ability to generate new ideas constantly. The best way to do this is to have a tool or method that you can use to stimulate your creativity. It can be any process, approach, aid (e.g., card decks), or tool you find helpful in getting your creative juices flowing. The key is to use the tools to be creative regularly. Don't just use it to develop new ideas for work or school projects. Use it to come up with new ideas for anything and everything. The more you use your ideator skills, the better your divergent thinking skills will become. There are so many ways that you can improve your ideator skills. One way is to practice brainstorming by identifying a daily object like a ballpoint pen and setting an idea quote (e.g., 25) for how many ways you could improve it. The idea quota forces you to brainstorm various ideas, some of which may be far-fetched and beyond the obvious. Still, the important part is that it gets you into the habit of generating new ideas regularly. The Connector The connector skill takes two seemingly unrelated ideas and finds the link. Divergent thinkers need to see the world in terms of connections and can come up with new ideas by linking together different concepts. This results in taking a lot of disparate ideas and finding the common thread that ties them together. The result is ideas that wouldn't have been possible if the thinking was linear. One exercise is to take a problem you are trying to solve and break it down into different fundamental parts. Then, find as many evident and non-obvious connections between those parts. Then take those connections and use your ideator skills to brainstorm more ideas. This will force you to see the problem differently and come up with new ideas that might seem random but could lead to an unexpected solution. The Analogizer The Analogizer is the skill where someone can see the similarities between wildly different ideas. They can take two seemingly unrelated concepts and mash them up. The result is the ability to come up with new and innovative ideas by finding connections between ideas that don't seem to be related. For example, it can take two different industries, companies, products, or services and find as many non-obvious similarities and differences as possible. Then take those and use your ideator skills to brainstorm more ideas. Divergent Thinkers Win The world is full of convergent thinkers. They are the people who work in corporations, follow the rules, and arrive at a single solution. They are good at following instructions and are often praised for their ability to “stay within the lines.” The world also has its fair share of divergent thinkers. They are the people who start businesses, push boundaries, and come up with new ideas. They are often praised for their creativity and innovation. Divergent thinkers are critical to innovation and progress. Corporations rely on convergent thinkers to maintain efficiency and consistency, but divergent thinkers drive innovation and change. Divergent thinkers can see beyond the status quo and develop new ways of doing things. They challenge the rules and find solutions to problems nobody else has thought of. Divergent thinkers help businesses stay ahead of the competition by coming up with new ideas that no one has ever thought of before. They help businesses remain innovative and relevant in today's constantly changing world. As a result, businesses that want to succeed must embrace divergence and encourage their employees to think creatively. To know more about divergent and convergent thinking, listen to: Why Divergent Thinkers Will Always Win. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

Jordi Fernandez, Founder and CEO of BeneTalk, joins the show to discuss the mobile app that provides a community for people who stutter. Jordi is a person who stutters and growing up, his parents and teachers didn’t understand how to approach it. At a young age, he engaged in various forms of speech therapy. When he moved from Spain to the UK, his therapy took an alternative approach. It focused on getting him out of his comfort zone and provided him with a community to be a part of. This community focus greatly helped Jordi and inspired him to eventually found BeneTalk. The Importance of Community People who stutter often struggle with social anxiety and other mental health issues. As a result, many choose to limit their speech. In the realm of speech therapy, this is called ‘masking’. Because of this, Jordi says there are a lot more people who stutter than the studies typically show. Having a community that shows it is all right to stutter can make a world of difference. It allows people to embrace their stuttering, instead of running away from it. This is where the BeneTalk app comes into play. The focus is not all on fixing the stutter, but rather on enabling those who stutter to feel more comfortable speaking. This allows them to build confidence and improve their speech over time. The BeneTalk app Jordi's vision for BeneTalk was to build a stuttering device similar to how a Fitbit operates. The hardware would be placed on the user’s chest and used daily. When COVID-19 broke out, Jordi and his team decided to pivot to a mobile app. The BeneTalk app allows users to learn about themselves, connect with others who stutter and track their speech progress. The app contains courses on stuttering and teaches speech techniques. The team is currently working on creating personalized speech therapy programs. Additionally, they are building a separate app for parents to help their children. Today, they have around 2,000 monthly users, from 165 different countries. In the future, Jordi hopes BeneTalk can be a digital therapeutics platform utilized by all those who stutter around the world. Check out Jordi’s LinkedIn here. Check out BeneTalk’s website here. About our Guest:  Jordi Fernandez is the founder and CEO of BeneTalk: a mobile app that combines digital speech therapy and community to help people who stutter, and their families, reduce the negative impact stuttering has on lives. Jordi was born in Barcelona, Spain, and worked as a Chartered Mechanical Engineer in multi-billion-dollar deepwater projects for 15 years in the UK. Jordi is a person who stutters, and in 2021, he quit his job to help millions like himself through BeneTalk. To know more about Jordi Fernandez and BeneTalk, listen to: Jordi Fernandez of BeneTalk on Innovating Stuttering. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

Whenever I'm speaking outside of California, I can usually expect an audience question about Silicon Valley. Such as — “What's the secret to Silicon Valley's success?” After all, this region is home to some of the world's most successful and innovative companies. People want to know what about Silicon Valley makes it so successful, and they're eager to learn any tips or tricks they can use to bring that success to their businesses and regions. If it were only that easy! The truth is, there's no one secret to Silicon Valley's success. Rather, it's a combination of factors that have come together to create the perfect environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. History of Silicon Valley The history of Silicon Valley is fascinating. Before there was Silicon in Northern California, there was agriculture. The first settlers in the area were farmers, and the region was known for its fruit orchards. In the early 1900s, the Santa Clara Valley was nicknamed “The Valley of Heart's Delight” because of its abundant fruit production. As the century progressed, the Santa Clara Valley became increasingly industrialized. During World War II, the region's companies produced materials for the war effort. After the war, the area's economy shifted to a focus on high-tech. This change was partly due to the presence of Stanford University, which attracted talented scientists and engineers to the area. Silicon Valley got its name from the silicon chip manufacturers once based there. Several major technology companies in the 1950s and 1960s were founded in Silicon Valley, including Hewlett-Packard. At that time, the area was known for its “startup culture” of risk-taking and innovation, and the region's many venture capitalists fostered it. In recent years, Silicon Valley has faced some challenges. Economic recession, cost of living, and competition from other regions have led to a decline in the proportional number of startups being founded in Silicon Valley. There have also been several cornerstone companies that have moved their headquarters out of the valley, including; SpaceX, Oracle, and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise. However, the region's culture and philosophy remain strong, and it continues to be a leader in technological innovation, albeit a shrinking leader. Innovation Culture of Silicon Valley Silicon Valley is known for creating a regional culture and environment for breakthrough and radical innovations. What are the elements of this regional culture? Here, failure is seen as an opportunity to learn and grow. The region's many venture capitalists are willing to take risks with new and innovative ideas, and the region's entrepreneurs are eager to experiment and take risks to achieve success. In the valley, securing funding for your next idea after a failure is easier than getting your first round of funding. Why? You learned. The region is also known for its culture of openness and collaboration. Unlike other business regions where companies compete fiercely with one another and keep everything confidential, in Silicon Valley, it is common for companies to share ideas and resources to create the best products and services possible. In addition, Silicon Valley is home to some of the world's best universities, which are a source of critical talent and innovation. Examples of Famous Inventions That Came From Silicon Valley Over the years, Silicon Valley has produced some of the most groundbreaking commercially successful inventions in history. While most did not originate in Silicon Valley, the willingness to innovate beyond what others are doing has made the region so successful. Here are some examples of famous inventions that came from Silicon Valley: The personal computer The personal computer is one of the most famous inventions to come out of Silicon Valley. It was first developed in the early 1970s by a team at Xerox PARC, and it quickly became popular in Silicon Valley thanks to its ability to help people work faster and more efficiently. In the 1980s, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak helped to bring the personal computer to the mainstream, and they helped make it into the essential tool that it is today. GPS The global positioning system is a technology that has revolutionized how people navigate. Bradford Parkinson, professor of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University, conceived the present satellite-based system in the early 1960s and developed it with the U.S. Air Force. The GPS works by using a network of satellites that orbit the earth. These satellites emit radio signals picked up by receivers on the ground. By triangulating these signals, the receiver can determine its location on earth. The consumer commercialization of GPS started with Hewlett-Packard's Charlie Trimble. Trimble was an engineer who became interested in using GPS for navigation after getting lost on a hike. Trimble Navigation was founded in November 1978 by Charlie Trimble and two partners from Hewlett-Packard, initially operating above a movie theatre in Los Altos, California. In the 1980s, the U.S. government allowed civilians to use GPS for navigation, and the technology quickly caught on. Trimble Navigation was one of the first companies to develop consumer GPS receivers. Over the years, GPS has become increasingly accurate and widespread. It is now used for everything from guiding planes and ships to finding our way around unfamiliar cities. GPS has even found its way into our pockets. Smart Phones The first smartphones were developed in the early 1990s. They were large, clunky devices that were not very popular. The Nokia 9300i was one of the first smartphones that gained some traction in the market. It was released in 2003, and it ran on Symbian OS. In 2007, Apple Inc. introduced the iPhone, which was a game-changer in the smartphone It was the first smartphone to become a mainstream hit. The iPhone was a revolutionary device because it combined the features of a phone, a computer, and a camera into one small package. The iPhone was made possible by Silicon Valley's love of innovation and its focus on integrating new technologies with the early failed concepts of others. Online Search Engines Given the birth of the internet, the need to organize the explosion of information became critically important. This led to the development of search engines. While there were many early attempts at organizing the web, the first true search engine was Archie, developed in 1990 by Alan Emtage, then a postgraduate student at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Archie allowed users to search for files on anonymous FTP sites. In 1996, Larry Page and Sergey Brin invented a new search engine called “BackRub.” BackRub differed from Archie because it used links (backlinks, thus the name BackRub) between websites to measure importance. This algorithm would later become the basis for Google's search engine algorithm. Google's dominance is because of its superior search engine algorithm, which ranks websites based on their importance and relevance. Portability of Silicon Valley's Innovation Culture The secrets to Silicon Valley's success are not that secret. Each element can be easily understood and applied, but what is unique is the combination of all these factors. What five actions other regions and businesses can and should take away as learnings? An Attitude of Innovation Cultivating a culture of innovation with a strong belief that innovations can change the world for the better is essential. This mindset encourages people to dream big. Encourage creativity and risk-taking One way to encourage creativity and risk-taking is to create an environment where it not only tolerates failure but embraces and encouraged it. In Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs can experiment with new ideas without fear of reprisal. This allows them to take on risks no other entrepreneur would dream of taking and develop innovative solutions. Fund and support early-stage startups One of the critical reasons that Silicon Valley has been so successful is the amount of funding and support available for early-stage startups. This allows entrepreneurs to develop their ideas without fear of financial insecurity. In addition, several organizations in Silicon Valley provide mentorship, networking opportunities, and funding assistance. Encourage collaboration The culture of collaboration is vital in Silicon Valley. Startups help one another by sharing resources and ideas, contributing to their growth and success. Establishing co-working spaces and incubators is an excellent way to promote collaboration. Co-working spaces allow entrepreneurs to collaborate and share ideas, while incubators provide support and direction for startup businesses. Develop a strong workforce Silicon Valley has developed a strong workforce because it has located itself amid leading research universities such as Stanford and the University of California Berkeley. These universities help to cultivate the skills that workers need for jobs in the tech industry. Businesses and regions can replicate Silicon Valley's success by investing in education and training programs. They should also focus on developing relevant programs for the local economy. Not All Good As with any region or industry, Silicon Valley has its share of pros and cons. While it is home to some of the world's most innovative companies and has produced countless technological advancements, some things need to change. For one, Silicon Valley is incredibly expensive. The cost of living in the area is astronomical, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to afford to live there. In addition, the high cost of housing is causing many people who grew up in the area to be displaced. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley. The tech industry is overwhelmingly white and male, and this needs to change if Silicon Valley continues to thrive. Finally, Silicon Valley has an attitude of elitist thinking regarding innovation that is not invented there — “Real innovation only happens in Silicon Valley.” Innovation with global impact requires collaboration that extends beyond any geographic area. This silicon valley thinking must change if it is going to maintain its position as a world leader in technology and innovation. Conclusion The innovation secrets of Silicon Valley aren't that secret. The region has been thriving because it has cultivated a culture of innovation, encouraged creativity and risk-taking, supported early-stage startups, and encouraged collaboration. These are all things that businesses and regions can replicate to achieve similar levels of success. However, there are some areas where Silicon Valley needs to improve. The region is becoming increasingly expensive and challenging to live in, and it needs to do more to foster diversity within the tech industry. Additionally, Silicon Valley must learn to embrace collaboration with other regions to maintain its position as a world leader in technology. The first step a region or organization should take is to identify the unique strengths and resources that it has to offer. Once these assets have been identified, a plan can be developed to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Any region or organization can achieve Silicon Valley-level success by following these steps. While I spent most of my career in Silicon Valley, I firmly believe that innovation success can be achieved anywhere in the world. The steps above are not meant to be prescriptive but rather provide a general framework for how any region or organization can encourage innovation. With the right mix of ingredients, any place can experience innovation success. To know more about Silicon Valley, listen to: The Secret to Silicon Valley's Success. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast

This is the second interview from my time at the Cable Tec-Expo Show in Philadelphia. Jan Ariesen, the CTO of Technetix, joins us to discuss how his organization’s prioritization of innovation, paired with the right team, helps them solve tomorrow’s problems. Jan Ariesen of Technetix on Prioritizing Innovation Engineers typically focus on solving today’s problems but don’t take time to think about tomorrow. Technetix has a reputation for solving tomorrow’s problems that others in the broadband industry don’t think of. Predicting the future is not simple, as you will almost always be wrong. Technetix empowers its employees by giving them the freedom to predict the future without fearing failure. Jan said that most of their ideas at Technetix fail, and only a few succeed. This is simply the nature of innovation. For example, it took the engineers at Technetix five years to develop a new style of broadband amplifier. While everyone told them it was impossible, they are now building amplifiers that can do 1.8 gigahertz. Technetix pushes its people to “make decisions” from the top down. People in the innovation space often get hung up on analysis and allow the fear of failure to overcome them. Organizations with a heavy experimentation culture give their people the tools they need to make game-changing innovations. Hiring the Right Team When Jan is conducting interviews for engineers, he looks for two key attributes. He always asks specific questions to those he interviews. “If your bike got a flat tire, would you go to the shop or fix it yourself?”. If the interviewee says they would take their bike to the shop, then he says they are not an engineer. True engineers want to understand things and desire to solve them. They have an unconventional way of thinking that others do not possess. Jan also looks to hire those that are team players. These people will help others and learn from them along the way. People often overlook the importance of collaboration and cooperation and overemphasize technical skills. You can always teach the technical, but you can’t teach the attitude and mindset. Check out Jan’s LinkedIn here. Check out Technetix’s website here. About Our Guest: Jan Ariesen Jan Ariesen is an experienced engineer with 30+ years of broadband cable TV design experience. He leads the CTO, Marketing, R&D, and QA teams at Technetix. Before 2008, Jan was the VP of Engineering, leading teams in the UK, Belgium, and the Netherlands. His teams were responsible for researching, developing, and inventing new products and technologies. Jan joined the Technetix board in 2018. To automatically receive the latest episodes of Killer Innovations downloaded to your device, click here and subscribe! To know more about prioritizing innovation, listen to: Jan Ariesen of Technetix on Prioritizing Innovation. RELATED:   Subscribe To The Newsletter and Killer Innovations Podcast