Newsweek and Intel collaborated on this Global Innovation Survey that polled 4800 adults in the U.S., China, Germany and the U.K.

Two of the more interesting survey findings included:

While most Americans (73%) believe the U.S. is technologically innovative, more Chinese do (82%) and a significant majority of Chinese believe we are staying ahead of China when it comes to innovation as opposed to less than a majority of Americans (41%).

In addition, many Americans (52%) blame poor math and science education as the reason for our falling behind, while more Chinese than Americans (45% to 18%) believe that creative problem solving is more important to innovation.

Perhaps a majority of Chinese value creative problem solving and Americans math and science since these are each areas of complimentary necessities to create, innovate and invent. And of course it’s something that each of these societies wants more of.

Originally being schooled as a mathematician and engineer, and having worked at one of the great think tanks – Bell Laboratories – it always seemed to me that balance would ultimately prevail over one or another extreme. However, over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that it is actually more important to be extremely great at both – not necessarily the same individual of course – and then build an organization through people that have a balance, using them to connect innovation to the real world, by continuously collecting business requirements, and creatively marketing products so that the economic engine behind the innovation remains continuously fueled.

One thing I’m sure of is that seed and venture capital are key to priming this engine and the world’s economy is quite dependent on our business risk takers.

In the 90’s, I had the opportunity to represent AT&T in one of the first Information Technology (IT) benchmarking studies facilitated by the Nolan, Norton Co. The two founders and principals of the company were David Norton and Dick Nolan. David Norton became famous for his development and use of the balanced scorecard while Dick Nolan was one of the leading professors of Information Management at Harvard. Their company Nolan, Norton Company eventually was bought out by KPMG – but I believe it may be independent again or at least reincarnated.

Our 9 month IT benchmarking study that was geared to highlight IT best practices (world-class best practices actually) was conducted with around 10 companies including Boeing, American Airlines, Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada, Sprint, Ford, etc. We used a number of techniques and as I recall it was an initial exposure to David Norton’s balanced scorecard which had just come out about that time. You can read more about it below and there is The Balanced Scorecard Institute for further information.

Applied to partnering, alliance managers can use these principles to measure:

• Partnership financial performance
• Customer satisfaction and increased customer interaction
• Internal learning through understanding of complementary products and services
• Process improvement through incorporation of best partner practices

Those 4 important balances apply to alliances and partnerships in the following way:

1. Process: Too much process and paperwork can overrun the alliance with unnecessary bureaucracy. Too little and there is not enough of a framework to work within. Having a defined go-to-market partner framework puts boundaries around where to focus.
2. Management: Too much executive interference may kill off the groundswell and viral effect while too little will surely doom its failure as evidence of no real commitment between the partners.
3. Customer Interaction: Too much customer interaction early on in the relationship will result in lack of focus and potentially dissatisfied clients especially if the partners paint the expectations too high. Too few early customers will stall the partnership from lack of concrete success stories and references. Early customer interaction can also help drive new areas of co-innovation that might go seemingly unnoticed.
4. Financial Results: Expectations that are set too high, too early will damage the credibility of the partnership, while too few results ends in a non-start eventually. It’s also important to build a compensation neutral programs with early incentives for both partners so that the line sales people that drive the success of the deals are appropriately compensated. That’s a subject of its own – but is quite important in the overall financial success of most partner driven relationship.

In summary, partnerships naturally imply balance, not necessarily in exactly equal amounts, but more in terms of relative commitment. Lastly, using a balanced scorecard approach can be an important lens into looking at your valuable partnerships and is another way to make sure that partnership success can be equivalently measured and improved.

For more information around the Balanced Scorecard
What is the balanced scorecard?
The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management system that is widely applicable to organizations regardless of size or type of business. The system, extensively used in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide, provides a method of aligning business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improving internal and external communications, and monitoring organization performance against strategic goals.

Since I tend to frequently use what I suggest, I keep getting asked lately what technologies I’m suggesting to help some of my clients. This is not a simple question since it typically depends on the client. What’s good for one situation is not always good for the next. In a sense, I could answer this from different perspectives and to make this personal I’ll use my background as a backdrop. You could do the same since, particularly if you have a broad range of experience or have a specific knowledge base. 

From one perspective, as a former IT Architect at AT&T Bell Laboratories, I typically pushed the edge of applying and incorporating the latest technologies. Since there were legions of programmers around me, if the technology performed poorly, I or someone around me could probably fix it. This is the least likely scenario today in business and although the first to be mentioned here, is my last choice – unless - this new technology could provide you with a significant edge against your competition. This frequently occurred with some of the big capital markets companies like Citi or Goldman Sachs where a microsecond head’s start in trading can be everything (first mover always wins in that market).
 
From another perspective, as an end user of technology and former Risk Manager in the financial and insurance world, I can say I gravitated towards first fully understanding the software programs that I had access to and what their strengths and deficiencies were. I then tended to experiment with commercial off-the-shelf programs that I could manage myself. So I would sometimes try a new software program using a subset of the data and information that I had at hand. Since I knew the data intimately, I frequently tried running new software alternatives against that data to understand whether the new results were better, or more importantly I tried to discover whether I could gain some fresh insights into this old data. If the new program didn’t take me a lot of learing time and was easy to install, I knew I was on to something. As an example, I used this approach successfully to deliver just-in-time risk reports to our large customers using a software tool that no one was using at the time. It took me from a manager to an Asst VP early in my career.

Lastly, I think there is the case of smaller companies (under 200 employees) who simply can’t get too far down the track with new programs. With this set of users, and I have some, focusing on simplicity and complementary programs is the right approach. These tend to be Microsoft Office only shops – maybe with some specialty programs like CAD (Computer Aided Design) if they are an engineering design firm for example. In fact, the operative technique here is to use programs that easily fit together and have been integrated together by many companies.

In short, keep these in mind before adding new technologies:

• What are your business needs – first and foremost?
• What technology resources, capabilities and people do you have and will this drain them from doing other worthwhile projects?
• Does it complement and add value to what I’m doing? What are some complementary and low-risk technologies that I could use?
• Is there a short term ( < 6mos) bang for the buck? Long term ROI doesn’t make it with many managers today.
• Will it require a lot of integration with other programs?
• Can I get a business user to trial it quickly?
• How will it get supported (internally/externally)?

So what are some of the technology picks that I like for business? I have a number of them depending on your size and on whether you’re a wealth management company, a health care company developing its web presence, a small or medium size business grappling with the basics, or a large or small business trying to understand its customer base. I will outline some of these good ones in another blog – or feel to connect with me. Feel free to offer your thoughts, favorites or other comments as well. I’d love to hear them!