Small but strong

Keeping the central innovation team lean

Creating a large team generates the need for processes, meetings, coordination, etc. This relates to my earlier blog “Process kills innovation”.

In many corporations where innovation needs to be stimulated, there is a need for a central accountability to provide focus, increase communication, alleviate barriers and track innovation efforts across the organization.

There are several benefits of keeping this HQ team very small, e.g. 1-2 people:

• Simplicity: innovators don’t need to go through several levels to get input or ask for support; business teams know where to share new business needs that need innovative solutions
• Speed: decisions are made fast as there is no need to align across multiple levels; less levels also avoids “lost in translation” issues
• Focus: a very small team cannot work on 15 different issues at the same time, so likely will prioritize a few key issues, programs or innovation areas that need attention
• Expertise: a small team will better understand the business problems, as it is closer to the business teams who need innovative solutions
• Insight: they will have a better insight in the key barriers for innovation, as they communicate with a broad range of innovators
• Efficiency: it’s easier to be aware of duplicative innovations that are going on, providing the opportunity to limit some or to connect innovators with similar ideas
• Lower cost: allows to focus resources where they are needed most, i.e. with innovators who are close to the customer, not in HQ
• Acccountability: it’s clear for leadership where to go for status updates and it’s clear for innovators with whom to share barriers for innovation
• Steep, continued learning curve: as the small team is involved in everything: identifying,  tracking, supporting, communicating, networking, recognition,…
• … note: these benefits are also valid for arguing for a small “central” innovation team at country or divisional level

There are obviously a few challenges to have a small team: workload (not possible to delegate), succession planning (all knowledge is concentrated in 1-2 people), scaling (both innovation stimulating initiatives and innovation experiments). This can be partially addressed by providing temporary, rotating assignments, e.g. a one year development assignment for high potential employees (who in turn become great innovation ambassadors in their next roles).

As Albert Einstein said:

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

So, as Innovation Leader, I consciously kept the central innovation team very small, with rotating support from colleagues in developmental assignments (a very successful win-win).

More reading: Is it necessary to have a dedicated innovation team?

What do you think? Please share below!