The Innovator's DNA - book by Dyer, Gregerson, Christensen

The Innovator's DNA; Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators is a book that we really need - right now - as we try to rearrange public services so we reduce costs and improve quality. I hear many people talk innovation but few actually doing it. I also think there are many innovators hidden away in organisations; just because they aren't smart at advertising themselves doesn't mean their abilities shouldn't be harnessed. So be on the look out for the following:

1. Associating; innovators connect the dots and see patterns between seemingly unrelated topics, tasks and issues
2. Observing: innovators spot emerging trends long before the formal reviews because they are intense observers of the small details.
3. Experimenting; innovators try things out - they don't necessarily talk about it or spend their time encouraging others to do it - they test things out themselves
4. Questioning; innovators can be a pain in the rear because they are curious and because they like discovering new stuff
5. Networking; it's difficult to spot patterns, notice details and test things out unless you have buddies. Innovators are terrific networkers and often link with others outside what may appear to be "normal" interests. They are also involved with groups outside their employment.

How would you rate yourself on these five categories?

Learning networks or social movements? Which is best for large scale change?

I'm not sure there is a specific answer as to whether learning networks or social movements are best for large scale change.  However, my personal preference is for learning networks and these are my reasons:

1. learning networks connect the people who are interested in solving the problem, and they do so in an interactive, participative and empowered way. In comparison social movements have the image of someone wanting to make something happen and in manipulating the joining in process and to an agenda they have set.
2. learning networks are about the exchange of information, discussion and both personal and group learning. Personal behaviour may change as a result of learning about something new from within a peer group. When a group discovers new knowledge and feel the creative process of doing so, they may become quite committed to then implementing changes.
3. learning networks can be direct and specific. They can be topic based or professional grouping based.
4. there is a sense of an output with learning networks. Social movements are useful in that they are purpose driven, however, learning networks to me are more concrete, pragmatic and easier to associate with outcomes and results.
5. we know learning networks work in healthcare while social movement theory is in its infancy. I am a proponent of using the existing knowledge we have to best effect.

This doesn't mean social movements are not useful, rather that I am sceptical about their ability to deliver results, especially when we know learning network can have an impact.

There is an excellent paper on Learning networks for sustainable, large scale change which is worth a read. 

Online Clustered Networks Spread Behavior Change Faster

Online communities have different dynamics to face-to-face communities of practice. New research suggests that for online communities, behaviour spreads more quickly when the community is grouped into networks with overlapping connections than when left to develop more random and distant links.

If you are managing online communities then the research is worth a closer look as it may provide hints on how to design and support it so behaviour and influence can spread amongst the participants.

For communities of practice not online this clustering effect is not new. Research has been around since the 1970's which show the importance of bringing groups together geographically, thematically and/or by profession or person type. As humans we like to be with people similar to ourselves and are most influenced by those the same as us - if Joe can make the change then I will probably be able to as well.

There is a lot of buzz about social movements, mobilising and organising for change in healthcare. One of the success criteria for this work will be the depth to which those doing the organising as well as those participating understand network dynamics, and design accordingly.  Random networks are less influential.

Web 2.0 is an important spread medium; it is not just for geeks!

The real "geeks" are talking about Web 3.0 so let's just stick now to Web 2.0. The term loosely refers to a category of internet tools that enable users to actively participate with content on the web. This is so much more than just participating in a chat group. It is about being able to customise your interactions, join up two different programs, make the web a very personal space for yourself right from how it looks through to how it performs for you. Web 2.0 users operate from a personal and community perspective and use the technologies available to them to bypass organisational and social walls.

Both formal and informal organisations that remain stuck in the Web 1.0 world of passive web systems, of the "come and get our information" or "network only within our boundaries" will soon find themselves with a generation of deskilled staff and a customer / client base who drop out sight. If the organisation holds a monopoly for their service, like many public services, then the incentive to invest in Web 2.0 is often limited as the customer has no option. The loss here is the reduction in staff skills and the inability for the gains in knowledge sharing, community building and the sharing of good practice that Web 2.0 can bring with it.

So what can Web 2.0 are some of the benefits of Web 2.0 for spreading good practice, or just sharing good ideas round communities - how can it help?

Publishing and sharing information widely over the internet
a) Use blogs (this is a blog..); personal information is important and can have an impact. If you're really scared then anonymous blogs are possible and could even spark a bit of fun
b) Tag; basically this is booking your favourite sites and then sharing your favourites with others in your social or work circle. Think about the possibilities.
b) RSS Feeds; these allow you to subscribe to places on the web so the infomration is delivered to you when the site / page is updated. Incredibly useful as you don't have to remember to go looking. It shocks me how many important healthcare websites do not have an RSS Feed facility.

Networking and collaborating with others
a) Social networking sites are ten-a-penny. Each has its own flavour. Check out which ones your staff are using now and why. By limiting your organisation to only organisation-wide ones you may be limiting their network and community. My favourite is Linkedin.
b) Whenere does the real news come from? To spread good ideas do we send out newsletters or allow the citizen journalists to use the architecture of participation we have put in place to share their videos and stories?
c) Wikis are ways to allow the we-think teams to create and work together and produce output. This is about dissemination through to adoption (in our spread terms) all in one go and not as a linear process.

Sharing and showing messages and information
a) Photos; there are many different websites with a variety of functions to allow sharing with comunity functions.
b) Podcasts; not just to deliver information, but also to provide ways to manage the downloads and streamline the way that the receivers then use their time more effectively (no more email and paperwork)
c) Videos; U-tube has stolen the market maybe, though this is one of the most succesful methods to get a message across and is almost compulsory. Think citizen journalism though. In web 2.0 the citizen create and share the content.
d) Mashups; this is where information from different places is combined, like putting submitted videos onto a Google map so you can see the location of where entries for a competition are coming from.

I think using Web 2.0 is not so much as using a set of technology tools as engaging with a different mindset about how we do business. It's like not "how do I use MS Outlook", it's "how do I best use the concept of email to carry out my tasks and build relationships", or not "how do I use the @stdev function in MS Excel" but rather "are there some useful functions in MS Excel that may help me in my role as a quality improver"? So Web 2.0 is not "how do I blog" but rather "what can we get from the concept"? or ""how can we mash-up" but "what mash-ups will add to our business value and further spread good practice?"

The technical boffins will always be around to help us do the techie stuff. The strategic and tactical business thoughts and discussions around Web 2.0 need to take place for them to be able to implement and reveal their talents.

(c) 2008, Sarah Fraser