Wanted: Chief Integration Officer

Posted by Chris Flanagan on January 22, 2008

I had an interesting conversation last week with BIF research advisor Stefan Thomke and MIT professor Eric von Hippel about the role of the integrator. What's more important, we asked, the various components that go into a successful innovation or the foundation/platform that the components are built upon? 

By now it's clear that technology has changed the way we interact with everything. Many innovations have been found through singular technology platforms. Moving forward, the greatest challenges and opportunities will not be found in an existing network but rather in the ability to unite various networks. So how do you create the capacity to pursue networked innovation?

Quite coincidentally, Bruce Nussbaum blogged about this very topic last week, describing Apple's integrated innovation strategy through the unveiling of the company's new Air laptop.

...the real innovation to come out of MacWorld lies in Apple’s business model and its successful ecosystem. Folks who think (and write) that Apple’s success is due to “stylish” products and cool colors miss the point. Innovation integration (or integrative innovation) is at the heart of Apple’s success.

Networked innovation isn't new but the concept has certainly taken flight during the past few years. I'm especially fond of IDEO co-founder Bill Moggridge's book Designing Interactions which traces the evolution of many networked ideas from creation to valuation. One reason firms such as IDEO repeatedly exploit the networked innovation process is simply because they freely share the problems and solutions they come across through their broad access to diverse industries and projects.

Another BIF research advisor, Andy Hargadon, also wrote a book on this subject called How Breakthroughs Happen. After spending many years studying the innovation processes of several modern and historic organizations, Andy argues that the most successful firms systematized their innovation processes and employ a strategy he terms ‘technology brokering.' From Andy's book:

"Rather than chasing wholly new ideas, these firms focus on recombining old ideas in new ways. Rather than insulating themselves from the existing work of the operating divisions, they draw extensively from the divisions. And rather than nurturing individual geniuses, they developed strong social networks both within and outside their groups."

In the end though, a firm's ability to move between various disciplines and industries to see possible recombinations of innovation isn't enough. It's at the point when you find a particular intersection when the hard work starts - and why companies like Apple or Netflix remain at the top of their game. It's also why experimental platforms such as the one the Business Innovation Factory has created are so valuable.

So to get back to my original question - what's more important, the various components that go into a successful innovation or the foundation/platform that the components are built upon - a better question might be can networked innovation occur at all without first making profound changes to the platform itself?