Using a common language
Over time, large corporations create their own language, acronyms, processes, procedures. These usually developed naturally. Everyone attaches the same meaning to key terms, helping to create efficiencies and a unique culture.
It is important to also establish a common language for innovation. It’s not necessary to overcomplicate or overdo it. However, if one part of the organization defines experimentation as coming up with an idea, while another group thinks it means doing a pilot, there is a risk for confusion. This will complicate global innovation stimulation and support.
A few basic agreed upon definitions can go a long way. Some of the ones I really secured common agreement on (also across divisions) relate to our common innovation framework:
- Ideation: the first stage of innovation, in which many ideas are generated and in which the selected ones have the potential to meet the 3 win-win-win criteria (win for the patient, win for a key stakeholder, win for the brand). This stage was agreed upon not to be called differently, like brainstorm.
- Experimentation: the second stage, in which key assumptions are validated or disproved. This typically involves a qualitative assessment, using a simple prototype. This is the stage where “fail fast/cheap” and “iterations” occur. This stage was agreed upon not to be called differently, like feasibility.
- Pilot: in the third innovation stage, quantitative assessments are made. If a pilot successfully reaches preset metrics, a recommendation to leadership is made to scale it broadly. This stage was agreed upon not to be called differently, like testing.
- Scaling: is expanding, rolling out successful pilots e.g. to a broader geographical area or to other brands. This stage was agreed upon not to be called differently, like launch.
We developed this common terminology, because over time different teams in the company had developed their own names for innovation stages with similar definitions as the ones above. As collaboration increased across these different teams, confusion hampered clear communication and expectations. E.g. some teams used the term “test” when they meant “pilot”, while others called it “experiment”. That’s when innovation leaders from those different teams came together and agreed upon a common terminology.
It’s not critical that the terminology is 100% correct, as long as everyone in the corporation has the same understanding of those terms.
As Andy Harglesis said:
““Definition is a choice.”
So, as Innovation Leader, I made sure that we had a corporate-wide common definition of key terms and then communicated, communicated, communicated this across the organization.
More reading: The Many Definitions of Innovation
More of these blogs? Click here: Wim Vandenhouweele
Do you agree, disagree? Please share below!