Do you see Sustainability and Innovation as separate issues or sides of the same coin? These two subjects are typically approached in very different ways - yet both fall over for the very same reasons!

• Restricting innovation (through fear)
• Opposing changes
• Realising a lack of sustainability

W hen a lack of control (at a psychological level) is not supported via our emotional or environmental experiences at work, change is unconsciously opposed! Where this is not understood by those leading an organisation, strategies and measures provoke responses that unconsciously undermine progress toward objectives. It’s a complex conundrum, largely ignored by the western world

Do you think the industrial sector is culturally ready for, or, able to take on-board a message like this yet?

Sustainability and Innovation are on the same coin, though not necessarily on the opposite sides. Innovation in and of itself fails unless driven by necessity. By necessity, sustainability looks to innovation to develop new ways of using/producing things more efficiently, driving change.

While there may be stakeholder attempts to restrict innovation due to fear of failure (financial, status), and risk to empire building, eventually these practices are unsustainable themselves; either because of the capital wasted in blocking innovation, or the inability of the enterprise to change/respond to external competitive threat in a timely manner.

If the enterprise does not respond adequately to sustainability challenges, responding only in terms of business efficiencies, the resultant loss of intellectual capital (expertise) and corporate memory (experience) is the first casualty. The logical next casualty is the loss of “connection with market” as staff become increasingly powerless, apathetic and “disconnected” from the customer experience.

Once the organization ceases to understand “value” and its direct correlation with people capital, it begins to decay; existing to self serve, rewarding mediocrity/fostering bureaucracy/maintaining the status quo/gate-keeping. It becomes reactive & blame driven - internal innovation and success are seen as the key competition by the gatekeepers, and comes under “friendly fire” -blocked at every opportunity.

The best way to drive successful outcomes in these environments is “secret squirrel”, then “show and tell” approach: Nurture low cost innovation in an incubator, quickly implement via non perfect RAD cycles, then let success have many parents by giving up the prototype and its benefits to be operationalised via traditional (non threatening) methodologies.

Natural innovators are change agents, who seek like-minded people and are driven by achievement. The individuals that drive innovation must be prepared to give up their “babies” in these environments, often without recognition or reward. Therein lies the paradox. Restrictive, dysfunctional environments have low success at retaining such resources. When finally an organization recognises that it must change, and must embrace innovation, it may no longer possess the people with passion, drive and know how.

Organizations are confronted with these challenges TODAY. Customer Experience programs are evidence of the slow recognition that internal culture & service models needs to shift to align with 21st century digital age customer expectations. Besides the problem of developing business cases to fund capital programs to drive change, the key challenges are outdated methodologies that are not geared to developing quality standardised delivery frameworks, Ownership, Governance (in complex stakeholder environments) and Future Mode of Operations.

The ownership question alone generates enough noise, and is capable of derailing the most beneficial of programs.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites