As we discussed here, managing innovation and new projects properly is extremely important for companies of all sizes and industries, although frequently overlooked -when looked at at all.

However, to do it properly, companies must have an appropriate methodology in place -if each team member uses a different tool, things won’t connect, and chaos will almost certainly ensue. There are a few of these methodologies widely spread throughout the market and used by many companies. The Project Management Institute (PMI) and its associates have been working on the PMBOK and have published seven editions of it. That is a collection of good practices that span from the initial project negotiation to the review of all its deliveries.

The PMBOK, despite bringing this list of suggestions on how to manage the diverse steps of a project, should be understood. It’s not a full, one-size-fits-all methodology. As a collection of good practices, companies and managers should select the ones that fit their reality and needs, rather than following everything blindly. The entirety of the PMBOK can be rather bureaucratic, making it time- and capital-consuming.

Not long ago, various agile methodologies were developed by different teams and organizations. The term “agile” is associated with the recent technological behemoths from Silicon Valley, and it was adopted because the PMBOK, as mentioned above, can be perceived as bureaucratic, slow, and overly complex with unnecessary steps and controls.

There’s gotta be a better way!

And that thought led to the creation of the Scrum, Kanban, and Lean project management methodologies. However, not all of the steps that those methodologies bring should also be blindly followed. Physical, personal, or time needs/constraints might not make any of those fully compatible with an organization’s reality.

So, even though those modern tools were created for the newer times, they suffer from the same issues as the PMBOK: it’s not for everyone. And if companies need something in place to help them manage their projects, but no single tool might fully meet their needs, what should they do? Create your own!

It’s essential to clarify what we mean by “create your own,” as it’s not advisable for each company to reinvent the wheel, especially since existing methodologies are constantly being developed and tested, with regular tweaks and improvements. Useful management methodologies are something hard to put together, and will very likely end up in another tool that will not fit all cases, but if you use parts of what already works, you can end up with something tailored and useful.

Maybe, then, the risk assessment tool that the PMBOK brings can be the right fit for you, but the project kick-off process described in the SCRUM methodology suits your company’s case more. By piecing together all the different tools and steps that make sense for you, the organization will find a tool -YOUR tool- that can become the single source of truth and standardize project management efforts, and just like any other methodology, it must be tested, verified, iterated, corrected, and retested. Companies might even use parts of modern and traditional methodologies, but ensure that the inputs and outputs for the diverse stages align and match.

There’s one catch in all of that, though. This “Frankstein” methodology needs a tool. Usually, apps such as Trello, ClickUp, or Asana can do the trick and help in most cases, but -again- not all. Just as the different parts and their connections need to be tested, the use of such a platform also needs to be tested and validated, including functionalities, user interface, reports, and automation possibilities. Most of those apps can also be configured and set up in different ways, which will require tests and someone who knows how to use the software effectively.

In summary, companies can develop their own methodologies and tailor them to their specific needs, but this process must be done thoughtfully and appropriately, without disrupting operations further.

Plan, test, iterate, correct, and implement.

Do you want to learn how an appropriate project management methodology can help your business in Oxford County, or any other part of Southern Ontario? Talk to us!

TRIZ, also known as the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (derived from the Russian “Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadach”), is an innovation framework developed by the Russian engineer Genrich S. Altshuller while he was working at a patent office in Azerbaijan. Curious about the origin of all the innovation projects he saw every day, he started researching those sources around 1946 and published the initial paper about the tool in 1956.

From his research, he was able to map and identify the innovation framework that all of those inventors used to create their projects. The patent requests were divided into five categories:

1. Routine/Apparent Solutions – Innovative projects that use an existing item and improve it with a known/familiar part, like upgrading a piece of machinery with an off-the-shelf component. Altshuller found that around 35% of the projects he analyzed fell into this category.
2. Minor Improvements/Minor Inventions – Those projects that use an existing improvement as inspiration to modify an item, such as observing that a competitor implemented an upgrade to their product and creating a method to implement a similar upgrade to yours. Around 42% of the projects were found in this level of innovation.
3. Major Improvements/Major Inventions – Similar to the previous level, but instead of drawing inspiration from within the same industry, bringing an innovation seen in a different market, such as applying a military solution to the residential energy generation industry. Roughly, 19% of the projects were classified as such.
4. New Generation/Fundamental Inventions – Applying scientific principles or discoveries to come up with the solution to a problem or the innovation in question. Usually, these studies are initiated in University laboratories and account for 4% of the analyzed projects.
5. Discovery/World-Changing Solutions – As the name suggests, these are groundbreaking discoveries that have the potential to change things on their own, like electricity distribution or the internet. They are almost exclusively (if not entirely) funded by governments and other public agencies, and represent only around 0.3% of the innovation projects studied.

The Altshuller Institute continued its research, and the numbers consistently matched the engineer’s initial findings. Similar to what Altshuller concluded, we can see, by observing levels 1, 2, and 3, that the vast majority of innovative projects come from solutions, products, and methodologies already known and available on the market -roughly 96% of those.

And this fact was the main breakthrough from his research. By observing the world, one might be able to come up with solutions that would solve and/or improve 96% of the cases they face. And this means that almost every problem companies and leaders have is already solved somewhere else – they just need to do a little more research. The article below is one of my favourite examples of this principle:

Nature gave scientists and farmers a solution for the horses being bitten by flies -they just had to observe. On a side note, there’s a whole subject that studies the nature and how its concepts can solve the many challenges we face as human beings across diverse disciplines; it’s called Biomimicry.

From that observation, Altshuller developed what came to be known as the TRIZ framework. The tool helps the user identify a specific problem (which is derived from a contradiction), transform it into a general problem, identify a general solution for it, and then design a specific solution. The core of the flow (general problem -> general solution) is precisely what matches the idea of observing the world around us and understanding the solutions in place.

The detailed flow is known as the Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving (or ARIZ, from the RUSSIAN), and it brings:

Analyzing the System >> Analyzing the Resources >> Define the Ideal Final Result (IFR) and Formulate the Contradiction >> Separate the Contradiction >> Apply the Effects, Standards, and Principles Knowledge Base >> Change the Initial Theoretical State >> Review the Solution >> Re-Iterate and Improve >> Review and Post-Mortem Analysis

To be able to apply the ARIZ and get the benefits of the TRIZ framework, you will need to utilize the Principles’ Matrix, as shown below:

Those principles were all collected from the research Altshuller conducted and represent what was found in the analyzed innovation projects. As you might notice, those principles are more suited to “heavy” engineering, such as factory structures and mechanical engineering. That’s because, of course, those were the topics mostly studied back then. It doesn’t stop managers and leaders from still using it nowadays, or adapting it to different uses, such as marketing or Management.

Now, even when you use TRIZ in its original form, the framework is still very useful because it prompts the user to consider different angles and perspectives, which will almost inevitably lead to insights and, often, the resolution of the problem. That is the main benefit of using an innovation methodology such as TRIZ, or some of its “relatives” like Nine Windows.

Having these tools, frameworks, and methodologies at hand can enable any team or company to break the “lack of creativity” blockage, solve problems, and bring innovative solutions to any market and scenario. Maybe it’s time to structure your organization’s innovation efforts (regardless of whether inside the research & development department or not) and increase your impact in your market -have you ever tried that?

Do you want to learn how to implement innovation processes and help your business in Oxford County, or any other part of Southern Ontario? Talk to us