Bruce Vojak — Serial Innovators: The Hidden Power Inside Mature Firms (Part 1)

"These are the most important people you've never heard of."

After interviewing more than 50 serial innovators inside the world's largest mature companies, Bruce Vojak knows something most boards don't: a tiny minority of people — roughly 1 in 500 inside a large firm — quietly create the breakthrough products that fund everything else. They have no formal mandate. They are often almost fired. And without them, the S-curve flatlines.

Bruce is co-author of Serial Innovators: How Individuals Create and Deliver Breakthrough Innovations in Mature Firms (with Ray Price and Abby Griffin), founder of Breakthrough Innovation Advisors, and a former engineering executive who has spent over a decade studying how breakthrough innovation actually happens inside big organisations. This is part one of a multi-part series with host Aidan McCullen on Bruce's life's work.

In this conversation, Bruce reveals:

• Why the humble carrot peeler is the clearest example of how innovation redefines the basis of competition
• How Tom Osborne at Procter & Gamble almost lost his job twice — before launching the billion-dollar Always Ultra brand
• The Tom Osborne quote every product team should hang on the wall: his products were "love letters to his customers"
• Why it is not marketing, it is "customering" — and why customer-driven beats market-driven every time
• The three roles inside the stage-gate process — inventor, champion, implementer — and why serial innovators play across all three
• Why stage-gate is brilliant for incremental innovation and lethal for breakthrough work
• The MP5 model: motivation, personality, perspectives, preparation, process and politics — what serial innovators bring vs. what they develop
• Why the politics is the work — and why pushing the boulder up the hill is Sisyphean by design
• The hiring insight that changes everything: "I want people who want to do the work innovators do, not people who want to be an innovator"
• How Iain McGilchrist's master and emissary, Charles Handy's S-curves and Thomas Kuhn's paradigms all converge inside one good innovator
• Why early success is a curse — and what to do when your organisation has forgotten how it found its first product

Chapters:

00:00 Why Serial Innovators Matter

00:31 Sponsor and Series Setup

01:11 Meet Bruce Vojak

02:45 Defining Innovation

04:08 Carrot Peeler Breakthroughs

05:54 Market Expansion Examples

07:56 What Is a Serial Innovator

08:44 Hiring and Spotting Innovators

10:32 Curse of Early Success

15:19 Punished for Innovating

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
These are the most important peopleyou've never heard of And not just

(00:03):
for solving customer problems,sure they solve customer problems.
They address the needs of executives.
They address the needsof their colleagues.
They're helping people keep employed.
They're addressing shareholder needs.
I mean, they're really simultaneouslysolving, if you will, the whole
equation in a potentially hostile--it it may not be hostile, it may
be just an indifferent environment.

(00:25):
And yet they have the will andthe drive and the skill that they
develop or have to, pursue it.
Before we start into our brand-newseries on the work of Bruce Vojak, I
wanna thank our sponsor Kyndryl, whoruns and reimagines the technology
systems that drive advantage forthe world's leading businesses.
With a unique blend of AI-poweredconsulting built on unmatched managed

(00:45):
service capability, Kyndryl helps leadersharness the power of technology for
smarter decisions, faster innovation,and a lasting competitive edge.
Also, check out the KyndrylInstitute, where there's a plethora
of brillIaint authors and thinkersfrom all over the world on a
wide range of content and ideas.
You can find that at www.kyndryl,K-Y-N-D-R-Y-L, .com/institute.

(01:11):
Based on years of interviews with over50 serial innovators inside large,
mature corporations, today's bookasks, who are the rare individuals
who repeatedly create breakthroughproducts from within big organizations,
and how do they actually do it?
Our guest and his co-authorsfind that serial innovators

(01:33):
are not just creative thinkers.
They are whole system operatorswho find important problems, invent
solutions, navigate corporate politics,and shepherd ideas to market, all
without a formal mandate to do so.
The book is equally addressed to theinnovators themselves, their managers,
HR departments, and senior executives.

(01:55):
The purpose of the book is to help peopleand corporations better understand,
emulate, enable, support, and managethese unique and important individuals
who have the potential to create newbreakthrough products that result
in large revenue and profit streams,primarily from large, mature firms.
In the first of our series on hisbooks, and to be honest with you, just

(02:18):
off air we agreed we're gonna do evenmore , we welcome the author of Serial

Innovators (02:23):
How Individuals Create and Deliver Breakthrough Innovations in Mature
Firms, Bruce Vojak, welcome to the show
Aidan, it's great to be here.
Thanks so much.
Great to have you on the show, Bruce.
It's been a long time coming.
We've been planningthis for 18 months , so
That's right.
great to finally put the face to theemails and the voice to all the messages.

(02:45):
But I thought we'd start with afew definitions, and feel free
to expand on these definitions.
One of the things I wanted to reallyshare was, what is a serial innovator?
The other was, whatinnovation is in your view?
Because as we were discussingoff air, that's the source
of so many problems inside oforganizations in the first place.

(03:07):
Let, so let's start with innovation,then serial innovators, and then
we'll build on why they matter
Yeah.
Yeah, you know, I'm so glad youdecided to start with definitions.
I always like to clear thetable with that myself.
So , we're in alignment.
You know, lot of people talk aboutinnovation as being technology, and as
you and I had just briefly discussedearlier, it's not necessarily technology.
It could be, it could involve that.

(03:28):
Same thing with creativity.
A lot of people look at it as,"Oh, I'm creative. I do something
different." And one of the examplesI often show is a picture with a
metal handle and a wooden head.
it's very creative, but it'snot necessarily innovative.
And so it kind of gives you a littlebit of pause and really it's something
that, that isn't-- It's new to themarket, new to customer use But something

(03:49):
that has value that people will bewilling to pay for, that, uh, that
there's, uh, financial implications andstrategic implications really as well.
then I often personally take itone step further, I talk about
how the best cases, innovationredefines the basis of competition.
And, you know, I didn't ask for this,but I think if I could just show

(04:11):
something that maybe you've seen before.
But, don't know if youcan see this well or not.
A kitchen knife.
And, you know, a hundred plusyears ago, if you were peeling
carrots, you'd use a kitchen knife.
And if you're like me, you'dprobably cut yourself and, maybe
cut too deep or cut too shallow.
But really, it was a problemthat people, you know, kind
of lived with for a long time.
And then at one point someone said, "Well,we don't have to do this," they came

(04:33):
up with this idea of a safety peeler,and the blades are facing each other.
And it has benefit not only of beingsafe, but it also has much more uniform
peeling, and so it's a good, outcome.
when people had this, early on at least,they had different design options.
And so people experimented within thatparadigm, if you will, for different
kinds of ways of solving the problem.

(04:56):
And then in the 1990s, , therewas a design innovator that
came up with the idea of puttingan, ergonomic handle on it.
And in fact, as an aside, , the storygoes that his wife had arthritis, and,
, she had a hard time peeling carrots.
And he'd cut off a broom handle,put it on one of these safety
peelers, and she could peel carrots.
Now, , we might ask, whydidn't he peel them for her?

(05:16):
But, you know, that'sa separate discussion.
But the fact is that, you know,he created a whole new business
with this renewal of competition.
then, you know, the obviousconclusion is that if you really
want to renew competition, youmake, pre-peeled baby carrots.
you know, in that progression, you'vemaybe seen this and maybe some of your
audience has, but to me it illustrates howwhen you change the basis of competition,

(05:39):
you really kind of reset the, the goal, ifyou will, of what people are looking for.
And it gives at least the person whoinnovates or the company that innovates
that, that disproportionate, at leastinitial advantage to work within.
I ta- heard you talk about this.
I did my research.
I heard you talk about this examplebefore, and I, it made so much sense to
me, but also people would say, "Okay,well, if I do that, others are gonna

(06:04):
copy me or emulate me soon, okay?" But
Right.
To your point, y- youactually create a new market.
You, you enlarge the market.
I thought about Joe Pine, you know,the idea of the experience economy
and the value change between a coffeebean and a Starbucks, and buying
the expensive coffee in a Starbucksversus selling the coffee bean, and

(06:25):
how the end product actually changes.
I also thought about Tesla and howTesla opened up their chargers to
everybody else, because if everybody'swinning, the market's bigger.
And those were just a few littleinsights maybe you might wanna riff on.
Well, actually, this is way old technologynow, but VHS versus Beta format.

(06:47):
You know, Beta was at leasttechnically the preferred result.
If, if people remember what a,a videotape recording is, it's--
I'm showing my age here a bit.
yeah, you know, the, uh, thethe VHS format was opened, and
it opened up all sorts of newgrowth, and it ultimately won.
the thing that I love to challengepeople with is to just look at any

(07:07):
product that you're looking at and tryto look at, you know, what's behind that?
Who was thinking about this?
Why are they making these changes?
And so, this is one I haven'tnecessarily shown anybody
recently, but this is a beer can.
You know, back in the day, you'dopen it with one of these openers.
And then, you know, how didthe, competition change?
You've got the pop top, and now the poptop is environmentally safe, because

(07:32):
you've got, something that holds it on.
one of these steps changed
I
And not just for the sake of changing,because there were some, you know, deeper
understanding of what the need was.
love that, and I was... Iremember those can openers.
They were l- they were lethal.
Do you remember the little spike onthe top and you had to, like... And
you'd cut your hands oftentimes.

(07:54):
Man, they were absolutely lethal.
The other person who's lethal, Iknow when I read out that intro, so
many of our audience were noddingand going, "Is he talking about me?"
Because that is the listenershipto the show, serial innovators, and
maybe not every element of what youdescribe in the book and the study, but
certainly a lot of the characteristics.

(08:14):
And as I say many times, I, I trulybelieve there's a place on the
spectrum for a serial innovator.
It's we, we belong there becausethey don't often fit, fit,
and they are hard to manage.
And actually, it's, it's oneof the things you call out.
Serial innovators work differentlyfrom typical d- uh, development
employees, and therefore theyneed to be managed differently.

(08:37):
So maybe we'll use that as a segueto describe what the serial innovator
is, and then we'll build on this.
And I was actually thinking, Bruce, inthe book, you even advise how HR team
can hire and interview for these people.
How can you attract themto your organization?
And I was, like, going God, thatcould be another episode on its own.

(08:58):
Yeah.
Yeah, and, oh, and in fact, just totake that branch briefly, sometimes
the best way to hire these peopleis to use the innovators themselves.
And it's a bit like having asommelier or someone, you know,
looking at counterfeit bills.
There's hate to say that there's anart to it because sometimes people get
dismissive of that, uh, response But that,that, uh, being dismissive of that view

(09:22):
really precludes a whole line of thinkingthat's so valuable in all of this.
But you're right, how do you identifyand, and develop these people?
It's interesting you saidthat about the sommelier idea.
I was thinking, yeah, and you knowthe, you know the special light that
they shine on a, on a dollar billto see if it's fake or whatever?
Yeah.
the, that, that is a huge problem.
I talked about this before.

(09:42):
The, the second innovator problem.
When you have a head of innovation whogoes into a company, claims they know
what they're doing, and s- and actually,I have to say, sometimes they don't.
Sometimes they don't know whatthey're doing and they think
they are good for the role.
They d- don't know it's apolitical role in a lot of cases.
They don't know how to navigate politics.

(10:03):
I've experienced that myself.
That, that is a, it- it's soul destroying,t- the amount of politic- politics
and politique you have to speak.
But when, when that happens, theorganization is once bitten, and
the next innovator comes in andthey're dealing with the history
of the previous innovation lead,and that's a huge, huge Challenge.

(10:25):
Well, you know, one, one of thethings we've been talking about
this is how do you id- how do youidentify, and I know we can dig
deeper on this, going to, like, what
I was thinking about that, Bruce, , 'causeyou work still as an advisor and a board

(12:31):
director for mature companies mainly, and
I actually genuinely think sometimesthey don't know how they discover
their first product anyway,because luck plays a huge role.
In em- e- emergent strategy or findinga product in the first place, and you
can stumble upon an amazing product.

(12:53):
I mean, everybody was a brillIaintproperty millionaire until 2008 and 2009.
We we, a lot of us havescar tissue about that.
But the same thing, you can, you can,you can just be in a buoyant market.
You can stumble upon aproduct and it just takes off.
Maybe you have some type of patentor some type of IP moat around
the product, and it can take off.

(13:15):
And then later on, as you say, yourS-curve wanes, you're at the top
of your curve, and y- y- you neverhad that skill in the first place
because you had early success.
And I, I often think about that,the curse of early success.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's, it's that i-idea of, know,

(13:37):
Because you mentioned Nancy, let's givea flip side, 'cause, uh, one of the

(15:02):
really interesting thing was Chuck House.
So
Oh,
y- you love Chuck.
We had Chuck on the show.
For those of you who don't know,I know regular listeners, you'll
definitely have heard Chuck.
We had him f- four times on theshow . Much like this, Bruce,
uh, it was supposed to be oneepisode and I turned it into four.
But
Oh.
the thing that I found so demoralizingwas, so he has the win with the screen.

(15:26):
Remember the first product he did, andhe w- he, he followed all the rules of,
uh, if you wanna call it, or the co-the playbook of your book, The Serial
Innovator, followed the, the diagramof circling, et cetera, et cetera.
We- we'll come to allthat and describe it.
But one of the things he experiencedwas- He had the win, then he went

(15:48):
for another win and it didn't workout, and he got punished for that.
And I was telling you before, like,I, I don't know where I heard this.
It might've been a Nietzsche quoteor something, and they said, "If you
wanna punish somebody, don't punishthem for doing something wrong.
Punish them for doing somethingright, or something they believe is
right." And I felt so much empathyfor Chuck when he happened that.

(16:10):
And I, I wondered, did you stumbleupon that in your serial innovators?
I love the question and Idon't wanna, I don't wanna
Thank you.

(17:11):
Well,
I, I learned, I actually learned so muchfrom him as well, and it was great to
see through his eyes what happened andthe challenges he had, et cetera, and
the lack of ego in, in lots of ways.
Like, one of the things we talkedabout was giving away the credit.
I'm sure if you're in P&G, uh, I mean,one of the things you're wondering
about, I'm sure, is, like, going, "DoI get a cut of this billion-dollar

(17:31):
product I've just I've just invented?"
You know?
Uh, one of the examples you gaveas well in P&G was Tom Osborne.
I thought this was a great one to
It-- you know, Tom, Tom's story--Tom's passed away a few years ago now.
Tom, uh... I, I mean, in additionto interviewing Tom, I had the good
fortune as an opportunity to speakwith him at a, a conference once.

(17:53):
And, uh, you know, I kind of toldthe, the pattern across industries and
companies, and then Tom shared his story.
Tom, um, you know, I, I-- if, if you,if you don't mind, I'm gonna spend
a little bit of time to develop this'cause I think it's, it's worth it
as a of, um, a pattern for others.
Tom's background wasas a physical chemist.

(18:13):
He has a Ph-- had a PhDin physical chemistry.
After his PhD, he did a postdoc,with Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner.
So, you know, Tom's scientificcredentials, just impeccable.
he ended up, uh, going from, if you will,academia into industry with P&G and worked
within analytic chemistry for a while.

(18:33):
So the kinds of things you'dexpect from a PhD physical chemist.
And he then transitioned into thefeminine hygiene product area.
And, um, y-the, at the time, and thisis, you know, y-you-- when you look at
these projects in context, in hindsightespecially, they make so much sense.
the time, feminine hygiene productswithin P&G, that area was heavily

(18:57):
populated by people who cameover from the diaper business.
And so their paradigm, if you will,of what the product looks like
was that it was like a diaper.
It was there to catch fluid.
and you know, Tom worked in this, and hewas given an assignment to, to improve
that, that product, and he worked on that.

(19:18):
But what he began to sense, andthis is the beautiful thing about
a lot of these people, began to getthese, this sensation, and again,
I don't wanna make it sound, um,mysterious or anything, but he began
to get the sense of, of disconnect.
Like, I'm not sure this is necessarilythe right solution, I'm not sure if

(19:40):
this is the best way to solve thisproblem of, of managing menstruation
as a, uh, in, in the form of a product.
um, he continued working on this,but he began to realize that
there might be something more.
And so What Tom did, and this is a patternwe saw across so many innovators, he

(20:00):
dug very deeply into what was going on.
And so very often, uh, there's kind ofthis, um, uh, entrepreneurial perspective
of we've got to let go of our hang-ups.
We, you know, we're justtoo, we're just too tense.
We've got to let go.
And, and in, in contrast, what wesaw with Tom and what we saw with
all these other innovators was thatthey dug deep to understand what

(20:24):
the unarticulated assumptions were.
And so Tom started studying menstruation.
What is it?
And how does it, if you will, differfrom, and again, uh, urination.
And as we wrote in the book, Ray andI learned more about these products
than we ever really wanted to know.
And, you know, I don't mean to beinappropriate, but, but it, it's,
it's fascinating from an innovationperspective, because here you've got blood

(20:46):
and urine, very different types of fluids.
One's more viscous, one'smore, um, liquid, if you will.
Uh, uh, one, uh, the, the, thenature of the flow, the timing of
the flow, it's just very different.
And yet you're taking one model thatworks well for one situation and trying
to apply it for the other, and it worked.

(21:07):
I mean, that's the thing.
It's a lot like saying,"I've got a safety peeler.
It worked." And those safetypeelers, you know, 70 years probably
of, of legs on that product.
eventually somebody said, "Hey,there's something different." Well,
it's the same thing with Tom and this.
And so he studied the,the biological processes.
He worked with, uh, medical modelsand, um, I wasn't aware of this,

(21:29):
but when physicIains are trained,they work with humans to train, to
understand about, uh, anatomy beyondjust the models, the physical model.
They actually work with peopleto, to more deeply understand.
And, and the more he dug into this,the more he was, I'll say, convinced
or at least more confident that, yes,there's something different here.

(21:51):
And, um, and that was when, let's say,the challenges began for him because
he began to view it not as a diaperto catch a fluid, but as a garment.
And, uh, the minute that design conceptchanges, you re- the minute you redefine
the problem, that's the innovation.
And then the question is, well,okay, are there technologies

(22:13):
there that can actually do this?
Can I bring the organization along?
um, one of the things that was,uh, typical of many but not all of
the people we interviewed is that,uh, Tom twice almost lost his job.
And, you know, and that, that needsto be shared because he was considered

(22:33):
to be, um, disruptive, um, notaligned with the company business.
And, you know, and I get it.
I mean, I, I gotta say they hadjust launched the, uh, Always
brand, uh, feminine hygiene product.
This was after the, um, toxic,toxic shock syndrome problem
that P&G had, uh, with tampons.

(22:54):
Um, as I'm recalling, I think Igot the, I got the order right.
I'm not sure how close they were in time,but, uh, they had launched this product.
It was really addressing... It s- it was avery-- The, the Always product was a very
successful product in the marketplace.
And so what Tom was doing wasactually challenging that.

(23:14):
and it's like, "We've got thisgood product. You know, Tom,
leave us alone," you know?
And, uh, they kind of... I don't wannasay it was a mistake they made, but
they-- the mistake they almost madewas they set him aside, and that gave
him even more time to work on this.
But, he, he was persistent.
he had a passion for his customers.
Um, of the, the phrases that he usedwhen we interviewed him was that...

(23:38):
this is a very appropriate statement.
I never would want this tosound inappropriate about Tom.
he said that his products werelike love letters to his customers.
And, you know, what a beautiful metaphorfor, you know, what an innovator is doing.
They're, they're motivatedto solve these problems.
And, um, and he persisted, and hewould at times get a, a more senior

(24:00):
executive involved, and, and they wouldadvocate with him or for him a bit
and, and, uh, help him make the case.
And then, you know, he gota setback and then again.
So this is not a, a, a linear havean idea, get a buy-in, launch it, and
everybody, you know, gets awards for that.

(24:20):
It's... It was very, um,m-much a stew almost of, of
activity and bootlegging things.
And it was at a time when, withinthe company you could bootleg
products, because financially,the accounting systems weren't
as tight as they are today.
And, uh, if you don't mind, at some pointI've got a story related to that, that I
think, I think you might find interesting.

(24:43):
So, so he was able to finallyget this launched, and it was
the Always Ultra brand, whichwas the next step in the product.
Billion-dollar brand for P&G.
That's how they defined their bigwinners, billion-dollar brand.
And, uh, and it was a, it was aninnovation that almost didn't happen.
And, uh, and again, a marvelous guy.

(25:04):
you know, we saw this in the peoplewe interviewed, that, uh, um,
just exceptional people in termsof their passion for customers.
Their, their deep insight, and I'llsay that not to disparage academic
insight, but not in a, in a detachedacademic sense, but very much, "I just
wanna deeply understand this." And,and then now I'm gonna bounce back.

(25:26):
You know, you talk about howyou identify these people.
Well, these are the kindsof things you look for.
How deeply have they looked into things?
Do they look under the hood,or do they accept answer?
And, um I don't know, marvelous,marvelous person, and I'll then extend
it to say marvelous people that, uh,that we've had, you know, really the--
We've been just so fortunate in, inthis project to meet these people.

(25:48):
So may- I hope this wasn'ttoo much, Aidan, but
joy.
Beautiful, man.
Well, and, and it's a, to me,it's a beautiful story, and I
don't know how else to say it.
And these are stories I want out there,that's why I'm, I'm really meaning this.
I'm so glad to be onthis podcast with you.
I love to have these stories out therebecause I think they need to be heard to
encourage people, to challenge others,and to say that this is, this is what

(26:13):
innovation can be in a beautiful way.
Well, for me, man, every episodeis a love letter to the audience.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
And I,
I don't know where I came up withthat, but I just came up with it.
Yeah, but it's true, though, you know,and actually, I've told you, I've
listened to him over time, but again,more recently, and I love-- I, you
know, not only Chuck House, uh, IainMcGilchrist, my gosh, I mean, I could,

(26:36):
I could just, you know, just wallowin his, uh, r- sessions with you.
Yeah, there are somebeautiful insights that are
Absolutely.
But I, I'm gonna comeback to a few things.
We wanna come back to your CFO story,your finance story that you just
teed us up for there a moment ago.
But one of the things was, I, I...We had Jeff DeGraff on most recently.

(26:57):
We did a three-parter with Jeff,and he was telling me about
this guy in the Army, sure.
So this guy had created processesto get stuff done, innovation done
better, and his then, his processwas co-opted for the COVID vaccine.
So, huge win, and hewas celebrated briefly.

(27:20):
The champagne was put away quite quickly,and then he got passed over for promotion.
And I do, I do want that to beknown because that's what, where
I was going with, you know, Nancywas celebrated and she was then put
on other products and she, she wascelebrated and she was known to be,
but it doesn't always work that way.
Sometimes you go against thegrain, you'd uncovered something,

(27:43):
and then you're actually, you'repunished for doing the right thing.
And I always think about, like, uh, an,there was a famous story of one of the
coaches in NFL and he punished one ofhis players who did a play at the end to
win the Super Bowl, but it wasn't whatthe coach told him to do, and he actually
marked the guy down, even though they wonthe Super Bowl because he broke the rule.

(28:05):
And, uh, for me, that's actuallythe lesson that, that that happens.
And
not always, it, just like thewhistleblower in any company,
it doesn't always end well.
Same for the innovator.
It doesn't always end up well.
And, and I think it's important to callthat out, that not every organization's
mature enough to go, "Okay, they,they deserve a medal of defIaince."

(28:25):
Yeah.
You know, Aidan, absolutely.
And, and, um, as I just briefly statedearlier selected on the positive stories.
when we went out looking for peopleto interview, we framed, "This is
our definition of a serial innovator.
Do you have people like this?" AndI'll quickly add that one person told
us, "Yeah, we have people like this.

(28:47):
I didn't know anybody else did." Butthat's kind of a-- that's a rabbit trail.
But, say that, that what we didn'tdo, and this would be a whole other
study, although I think it'd be a canof worms, to interview the people who
had these experiences you're describingbecame kind of bitter and cynical
and, and checked out, if you will.

(29:07):
And I mean, and I mean thisas no disrespect to the
people I'm gonna allude to.
Obviously, I wouldn't mention names.
I've known people like this.
And, uh, and I, and I understandhow they can feel that way.
And it's, it's sad.
I, uh, I don't wanna say that theserial innovators are more resilient
because I think that's a bit ofa, an easy answer for me to give.

(29:29):
I think there may be some truth to that.
refer to s-- a lot of this being luck.
I think that that can be part of it too.
It's being in the right situation.
But I I think so-- The question is,you don't wanna have either error.
You don't wanna have things go tomarket that are just stupid ideas,
and you don't want things stoppedthat are, are wonderful ideas.
And those two types of errors, how do youwalk that line is a, is a big challenge.

(29:55):
And I think how we even navigatethat today is different than
it even was a few decades ago.
But you said there, like situationalis, goes beyond the organization.
So I've seen people like this,and I know sometimes it's
like, "Man, I just had a baby.
Man, I have a massive mortgage.

(30:15):
I done this before and my wife can'ttolerate me doing it again." Like,
there's those situations, and theyhave to make really tough calls knowing
that, in a way, they're giving up andthey're putting their brain in the
desk, you know, putting it away and justchecking in and just getting a paycheck.
The br- great Dee Hock, who was a greatmentor to me, he wrote the forward

(30:37):
to my book, he, he was the founder ofVisa, he told me, he, he had a term for
it, he called it retiring on the job.
Yes.
he said that, that moment, he had thatmoment, that moment... And I think a lot
of people have these moments where, Ihad it where I gave up on a company I was
working in as head of innovation, and Iremember one day coming in, looking at
myself in the mirror and saying, "I'mwell-paid, I have a pensionable job.

(31:02):
It's not, it's not any effort here.
It's easy.
But do I want to be here checking inevery day?" And, and I'd look around the,
uh, the building and the company, andpeople looked older than they should look.
And I actually think it's alittle bit like DorIain Gray.
Yes.
out, you're dying onthe inside a little bit.
You might have great hobbies,but you certainly hate

(31:24):
going to your job every day.
and I've seen that too.
And I, and I think everybody-- all of yourviewership, I think, will have seen that.
That's a horrible thing.
And, and also, I mean, you, you're,you're like, we were talking
about you, you don't, you haven'tretired, you don't intend to.
Also, retirement, I mean, you see peopledecline massively when they retire.
So

(31:44):
Yeah.
whole different episode to talk
Well, it is-- But I'm gonna quickly addone thing, and I don't wanna lose this.
It's not that everybody who isn'ta serial innovator is, uh, uh, you
know, should be on, uh, Prozac and,uh, has given up on life . I mean,
and I'm, I'm, I'm exaggerating to makethe point because, you know, there,

(32:04):
there are these other-- and we'll getinto this, I think maybe still today.
There are these other roles that are aperfect fit for other, for other, if you
will, personalities and perspectives.
um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna use a quotethat my colleague, Ray Price, one of the
co-authors, his wife was a pIaino teacher.
And she said, "I can teach anybody to playpIaino, can't have all my students play

(32:29):
at Carnegie Hall." And so not everybody'sgonna be a serial innovator, you know?
And, you know, I am onein 500 in some companies.
In smaller companies,maybe it's one in 100.
But, but, you know, you get the idea.
It's not that everybody's doing this and,and, and it's not to dis-- to diminish
the other people, 'cause there's suchimportant other complementary roles,

(32:50):
whether it's executives or whetherthey're colleagues in other areas.
it's just the ones that we're saying, asyou had pointed out, that are checking
out where, eh, maybe that was somethingthat wasn't the right choice for them.
I wanna be clear, I don't wannasay that we live in a, a society of
people who are checked out, but, but,but is everybody fulfilling their

(33:10):
potential in the role that they're in?
Maybe that's a better wayfor me to think about it
Yeah, well said, man.
Really well said.
I'm glad you said that.
But d- I think we need to, one moredefinition, which is the idea of you
work, we mentioned you said companiesforget maybe their origin story or
how they did it the first time, andthey're stuck in the second iteration

(33:31):
of, "How do I jump the curve?"
Or, "How do I do this again?
How do I, how do I regenerateinnovation or, uh, culture of
innovating within the organization?"And you say in the book, "Firms need
to support two types of innovationto stay competitive in business.
They need incremental innovation,exploit, and breakthrough or
radical in- innovation, explore."

(33:51):
So let's share those two, becausethey set us up then, and I
want to get our audience ready.
If you're listening to this on a podcast,you're prob- uh, like a podcast platform,
audio only, you're probably better offfor this episode from now on anyway,
moving to video, 'cause we're gonnago through a series of diagrams that
we've had designed especially for thisepisode, and Bruce is gonna kindly bring

(34:14):
us through them, and they bring us onthe evolution of the stage gate process
into how a serial innovator does thingsand has succeeded over these 50 different
people that have been interviewed.
So I'm just teeing you up for that.
But let's start up firstwith this idea of incremental
versus radical or breakthrough.
Your definitions and anything elseyou wanna add around that, Bruce.

(34:34):
Yeah.
You know, it's great.
And in fact, I'm gonna just brieflygo back to this, um, the idea
that we discussed earlier with thepar- carrot peeler, because the
No, you're good.
peeler is, to me, a real richexample of what incremental versus
breakthrough might look like.
You know, I'd shown in-- Youknow, actually, Aidan, you're
mentioning to look at video.
I've got two different types ofsafety peelers here, very different.

(34:56):
And I-- I mean, I can't withconfidence say exactly why
these two designs were done.
This is-- This was actually purchasedon eBay as a vintage vegetable peeler.
I, never knew that you couldGoogle that, so go figure.
But, but, uh, you know, my guessis that this one uses more metal.
It probably requires a, a, amanufacturing process that's more costly.

(35:19):
And so to me, incremental innovationis this idea of how do we, as, you
know, Thomas Kuhn would have said, howdo we optimize within that paradigm?
And it's important.
I mean, it includes things like, youknow, adding a different flavor to a,
a, a beverage or adding a differentfragrance to a, a laundry detergent.
And I'm, I'm kind of limiting us,if you will, at least initially,

(35:41):
to, uh, consumer products.
But, you know, you could envisionthat these are any kind of product
where you're exploiting the existingplatform of product, uh, to win.
And it's not only different designs.
It includes, uh, using a leanimplementation, Six Sigma, and it's really
working to optimize within that paradigm.

(36:02):
And now I'll take a step back.
You mentioned the S-curve.
Critical, um, and even in the second book,we even emphasize it more because, you
know, you start with the stew of activity.
It emerges.
There's a rapid growth,and you hit this plateau.
And it's at that plateau wherecompanies increasingly rely on
incremental innovation 'cause they'relooking to extend that success.

(36:25):
And what, what breakthrough does, um,is it renews this basis of competition.
It's-- You know, to me, it, it's thedefinition that I love to keep going
back to because it's like saying, "Okay,we're all playing, uh, football." Uh,
I'm thinking American football, butI'll, I'll let you go any direction.
But-- And then, and then betweenseasons, we're gonna change the rules,

(36:48):
and it turns out that the rules aregonna favor teams, you know, with or
without running backs or with or withoutcertain kinds of kickers, you know?
And suddenly, if your team has aplayer like that, you're either
propelled up or propelled down.
And, um You know, what you'rekind of looking, and it's not
always that explicit, but you'relooking for these opportunities.
And, uh, so to me, that's thedifference between what I would say

(37:10):
is a breakthrough versus incremental.
Um, it's not one is good or bad, , it'sjust that you need both and that
you, you want to squeeze everythingout of a product that you have.
you can't do that necessarilyat the expense of a really
great renewal opportunity.
And, you know, go backto Tom Osborne's story.
They were squeezing, um, profitsout of the, the Always brand, and

(37:35):
that was a new, relatively new,uh, product platform for them.
So it was difficult to challenge that.
think of emotionally difficultfor people who were invested in
that to, to keep extending that.
Um, and so, you know, there canbe these tensions even, and I'll
quickly add, and again, I alludedto Iain McGilchrist earlier.

(37:56):
He talks about S-curves.
Um, and I'm stunned because when Ilisten to him, I think, "Oh my gosh,
there are so many parallels withbusinesses," when you think about
left and right brain and explorationversus exploitation, if you will.
And it's these concepts, theymaybe don't repeat, but they rhyme
across these different areas,and these patterns are there.

(38:18):
And, uh, I'd say that'sthe tension that you have.
And, and, um, one of the thingsthat we found was that, you know,
you've got this optimization culture,and you've got what I'll call,
um, an innovator-friendly culture.
it.
doesn't have to be like a startupinnovator, but at least friendly to that.
And in the best situations, they'regonna work in tension with each other.

(38:42):
They're never gonna be fully resolved.
In fact, you mentioned the DeGraaffs.
I'd say a bit of what they talkedabout was, was a tension, this idea
of conflicting or complementary views.
And, um, and when they're in tension andthey're managed in tension, it works.
But it's just way too easy, and it'sdeadly if you don't manage that tension,

(39:02):
and you tend to let, you know, again,going back not to belabor the McGil-
McGilchrist view, when you let, letthe emissary rule and you don't let the
master at least appear periodically.
So maybe I'm getting way off
it.
Now,
on it.
I, I was the same and it's why Ihad Iain on the show, because I, I
have his tome of work there, the twomassive books, The Matter With Things.

(39:27):
But the, the left and r- right-brain thingmade absolute sense to me, and there were
so many things where we went deeper, wherehe was actually talking about how, um
it literally is the idea of exploit andexplore with the left and right brain.
And an example he gives, uh, you probablyremember, was the pigeon, um, or a bird.
You know, we say a bird brain.

(39:48):
Well, the bird's brain is sosmall that it's split into two.
And, and, and actually the sight, sowhen you see a pigeon, uh, if you ever
see this, I see it everywhere now, ofcourse, once you're aware of it, the
pigeon is, looks at you with one eye Butwhat, it'll look down with the other eye.
So w- if it's looking for a piece of,like, grain amidst a load of grit on
the ground, it will use a different partof, it'll use a different eye 'cause

(40:10):
that eye is associated with one sideof the brain, and then it'll look for
the bigger picture with the other eye.
And I was like, going, "Well, that'sjust we're exploring, exploring."
back and, and look forthat 'cause I had missed
Yeah.
I-- See, those are beautiful storiesbecause again, you know... Boy,
again, I can-- I apologize 'cause this
Yeah, I lo- I love making those parallels,and that's the beauty of doing the

(41:29):
show, is that, and being a little biteclectic with the guests and going a
little bit in neuroscience, a littlebit understanding different things.
But I, I would've spent a year with Iain.
I, would have loved tobeen a fly on the wall
Oh, man, it was great.
Really great.
So, and I had him twice.
I had him for The Master and HisEmissary the first time years ago,

(41:51):
and then for his, we did a two-part,three-part on his recent book as well.
But I could've easily done athree-year with him, uh, weekly.
It was so much knowledge.
But he gr- lovely man as well, by the way.
So
I can imagine
one of the things you said there wasreally important, the idea that, say,
blue ocean or any type of framework, thatwe, we s- somebody puts a name on it, and

(42:15):
then people go, "Oh, that's how you do it.
That's how you innovate." But thefamous stage gate process, I r- I
remember actually when I went tomove from my first job, which was in
digital transformation, I was going togo to a role in a company acquired by
Mastercard called Orbiscom, and I wasinterviewed about the stage gate process.
And they, and I was like, I didn'tknow what it was 'cause, and even

(42:38):
though I was in development, becauseI was using an i- iterative process.
And when they said it, I was likegoing, "But that makes no sense." It's
b- 'cause I was doing stuff like appdevelopment, and our process was get an
ugly version out into the marketplace,see how people react to it, because-
An, an MVP, an
Yeah.

(42:58):
Yeah.
And, and, and the reason was becauseinitially I, I, I learned the hard way
where I'd put out a survey and go, "If wehad this in the app, what would you use?"
And they're like, "Yeah." Then put itout there and nobody even touched it,
and we're like going, "That... Well,that was a waste of time." So then
we're like going, "Well, let's justkeep updating, updating, updating."
And plus, the audience go, "Wow,these guys really care." '.. So when

(43:19):
I saw a stage gate process, it waslike going, "This makes no sense."
Plus, you're gonna have to manage a boardwhere the board are like going, "How is
that product coming along?" You're going,"Well, here we are midway through this
stage in the stage gate process." Sowith that, I'm gonna put on the screen,
Please.
Any of our audience whohave been listening to us so

(43:40):
far, switch over to YouTube.
If you do, I never ask this, andI'm terrible at asking this, d-
please leave a like or a comment.
'Cause I... And, and smashthat subscribe button.
I've never, ever said that, Bruce.
But I, my, my kids keep saying to me,"You never ask people to do that." And
I'm like, "I'm, I'm gonna ask you now."So if you're with us now still, please

(44:03):
do that, and subscribe to the show aswell, 'cause it, it helps our sponsor
Kyndryl know you're with us as well.
So let's... I'm gonna tee up now on thescreen the stage gate process, and we're
gonna go through this and the evolutionof these different diagrams, and Bruce
is kindly gonna take us through these.
And Bruce, I'll be sharing littleexcerpts of these on LinkedIn as well,

(44:24):
little segments, little bites for people
so take us through this, and you tellme when you're ready for the next image
Yeah, you know, uh, this is, uh...the-- this first slide is, uh, what I
think everybody would probably agreeis, uh, a pretty generic stage gate or
phase gate type project or, uh, process.
Uh, you know, the left sideis the fuzzy front end.
The right side we've identifiedas the gates and stages itself.

(44:48):
The fuzzy front end is kind of thatstew of, let's say a shapeless, stew
of where does the insight come from?
And then the idea is that oncean insight is generated or an
opportunity is, recognized, thatthere's a next phase where somebody
catches that idea and says, "Oh, Ithink we can do something with this.

(45:09):
We can make it into a product," or,"There's a need that we've identified."
And then you put it through a series ofdevelopmental steps where you'll, you'll
make a small additional investment.
Maybe you'll begin to assessthe market for this idea, if
it still looks good, continue.
If it doesn't look good, maybeyou'll put it on the shelf and,
and, and set it aside for a while.

(45:29):
And then the next phase is you build,as you suggested, you build maybe a,
a, a, a, a more realistic prototype.
You use that to test themarket, and you iterate like
that until you get to a launch.
And, you know, the-- and I reallymean this, the, the beauty of a
stage gate process or this model isthat it does allow, um, executive

(45:51):
management to see where things are.
And, um, and, you know, it's becausethey're often-- and I-- this is n-not
meant to be dis-disparaging, becausethey're often detached from the
day-to-day activity, this is a simple,uh, way of communicating to people.

(46:11):
, I'd say processes too, .. in fact,I've, I've used this in the second book
more, , that processes instruct theneophyte, the newbie, they remind the
experienced person about what to do.
'Cause I've seen, you know, experiencedinnovators like, one, an amazing
concept, and after probably about ayear in development, they realized there
wasn't enough niobium in the world tomake this product a reality, you know?

(46:37):
And so those are things that could havebeen avoided if you had gone through
the steps in an appropriate way.
, So, you know, there's value tothese things, but it is kind of
a, deconstruction of what reallygoes on and a reconstruction.
And so, you know, what we found wasthat-- and I think maybe if you go
to the next slide now, this slide,uh, to me, just kind of sums it up.

(46:58):
There are different roles thatwe observed we conducted our, our
research and, like anything, you know,we tried to discern the patterns.
We didn't want to necessarily impose theseroles, but, we felt pretty comfortable
that these patterns were out there.
That on the far left side, in thefuzzy front end, you've got a role
that we would refer to as an innovator,very often, a technical person,

(47:21):
engineer, maybe a scientist of someform in a technology-enabled company.
And I'll include, youknow, consumer products,
Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble.
You've got technicalpeople in those companies.
You might not consider them the sameas, Intel or a Google in terms of
technology, but they're enabled bythese technologies, clearly important.
And then the idea of this, hero inventorhas an idea,, and then the champion

(47:45):
is a, someone who very often is verymarket-focused, who gets the idea and
says, "Oh, I think we can do somethingwith that." maybe they tell the inventors,
"Here's some need," then it flows through.
And if the idea is consideredleast viable at that early
stage, it goes to an implementer.
And these are threedifferent profiles of people.

(48:07):
Again, the one on the far lefttends to be more technical.
The one in the middle might be a technicalperson who's moved into marketing.
And then the one on the far right,the implementer, is very often a
project manager, and these are verydifferent roles, from each other.
And if you go to the next slidethen, what we observed with the
serial innovators, they were peoplethat played across all these roles.

(48:30):
They didn't necessarily play at thesame level across all these roles,
but they did play across them.
And so, they had these insights.
Understood the market needs sufficiently.
while they weren't necessarily the oneresponsible for implementing, they very
often-- and we'll see this more as we getto the hourglass model in a later slide.

(48:52):
But very often they saw it through, notthat they led the implementation, but
they stayed tethered to it because whatyou don't want is to have a great idea,
let go of it, and then find out that it'sbeen corrupted down the road somewhere.
That somebody's, you know, made somechanges that make sense to get it out
the door, they maybe lose the valueof, of the product concept itself.

(49:17):
that tethering plays an importantrole even in, um, uh, influencing and
creating market acceptance at some point.
Again, we can share acouple of stories later.
And then the next slide I just wantto briefly go to because the inventors
tend to give what, has been commonlycalled a technology push solution.

(49:37):
champions are gonna give youwhat's historically viewed
as a market pull, , solution.
And there's times and situationswhere, both are appropriate.
I want to be really clear.
So, uh, you know, for example,technologists may have some idea to do
something that, that the marketing peoplewould never have even dreamed to ask for.
And they'll, "Oh, youknow, it's interesting.

(49:58):
We'll take that and run with it." The onethat is more commonly understood would
be the other way, where the marketingperson might say, "Oh, you know, my
gosh, if you just add a peppermintversion of this in addition to the fruit
flavored version of it,, it'll be great.
And so then they send the technologists,if you will, back to the lab, and they
come up with the right formulation that'llnot only work in that physical product,

(50:20):
but, you know, persisted with good shelflife and all the other good features.
And so, we look at those two asdifferent areas, but the serial
innovators, they operate across both.
It's not an either/or, it's a both/and.
You know, and we wrestled, you know--Aidan, I have to tell you, we wrestled
with what charts to even show over timebecause, again, these morphed over time,

(50:43):
but they almost always started withunderstanding the customer need deeply.
So they weren't always necessarilywhat we would call market-driven.
It was customer-driven.
And Osborne's story, Ithink, is a great example.
I jokingly said it's not marketing,it's customering, because it's really
understanding the person who buysthe product, and that's where Tom's

(51:05):
investment of himself into the needsof the individual was so critical.
so, as you see in this chart, you know,you start with this customer need.
And as they're looking atit, they're saying, "Well, I
can do something with this.
I think that there's some technicalsolution that might be viable, within
this customer need." And then they'relike, "But wait a minute, if I do

(51:26):
this, will the customer still needit?" And they go back and they, okay,
they tweak it a bit, and they go backto the technology, and then all of
a sudden it's, "Well, wait a minute.
Is the market big enough even make thisworth our time to invest ourselves in?
is there that level of viability?" Andthey go out and they probe the market, and
it may be with this idea of a, of an MVP.
It might even be with a prototype.

(51:47):
Just a mock-up to say, "If youhad this, would you consider it?"
And then, and, as you had mentionedearlier, you know, to what extent
do you believe that information,relative to someone just paying money
for a product, the ultimate goal.
So they would go back and forth, andeven this idea of going back and forth,
it suggests a process, it-- I hate tosay that it's not really a process.

(52:10):
It's more of what I will call astate diagram, borrowing from the old
computer literature, that you go toall these different points, but the
order, how you do it, the simultaneityof it versus sequential nature of
it, that's all kind of a side issue.
It's just that you have totouch on all these things

(52:31):
before something is a success.
And I'm gonna briefly step back tooand say something that I was thinking
about as I was preparing for ourconversation, that, ... And I wanna be
sure I say this right, that our approachwas to come at this multiple ways.
We looked at who they are, we lookedat how they innovated, we looked at how
they're motivated, how they're managed.
And even how we looked atthese people changed over time.

(52:55):
And I do not want to say that Ray andAbby and I are innovators, goes to
this idea of how dis-discovery occurs.
say that we were atsome level discoverers.
We were discovering who these people are.
And I'll say that'swhat the innovators do.
They discover.
They discover the market.
They discover the customer, thepersonal need, even in a B2B situation.

(53:17):
What are people-- You know, whatis the buyer willing to pay for?
Uh, they discover the market.
Is the market big enough for us?
Is it attractive enough, enough over time?
Is the technology there?
And they immerse themselves in all thesethings, they see them in a, in what I
will say is more of a simultaneous, it'san overused word, but a holistic way.

(53:37):
And, um, I'm gonna then briefly, sincewe're on this, I'm gonna show a book.
I don't know if you can see this.
Magic Eyes.
Are you familiar with these
No.
It's a children's book, um, andthey have these amazing, uh, images.
I don't know if you've seen these.
and if you look at them just right,uh, you'll see an embedded 3D Image

(53:58):
Oh, I know them.
Yeah, I know the posters.
Yeah,
you--
Yeah.
Posters or, again, I say children'sbooks, but, I've, I've loved to use
that metaphor for how these people work.
Now, it doesn't mean that if you'reable to view these, you're gonna be a
successful innovator, but everybody seesjust a mass of dots or a mass of colors,
and, oh, that's nice, pretty picture.

(54:18):
The innovators, though, they havethis posture of how to look at
these, and they see it holistically.
They've got this bifocal vision, they seea pattern other people just don't see.
And again, I don't want to make thistoo mysterious, but I want to call
out that this is what discovery lookslike, it's innovation in the company

(54:38):
or it's whether, I'm learning howto use my gas grill in the backyard
without burning the fish, you know?
I'm discovering a pattern.
It's interesting you, you said that.
Br- bringing it back to Iain McGilchrist.
Yeah,
sorry.
I, I
but it's true, like Iain, Iain, bringingit back to Iain, w- we talked about
this, and in one of the books he has thepicture of what looks like a load of dots.

(54:59):
And
Yes.
I look at it, I saw, well,straight away it's a DalmatIain.
And he's like, "Well, that's causeyou've honed your right brain a little
bit." But mo- a lot of people willlook at it and go, "Well, what is
that?" And it, and that was the point.
Um, and actually I wanted... I'm gladyou stopped on this diagram because

(55:20):
the innovator, it's, it's reallyimport- It's a really important thing
if you're a manager of an innovator.
The motivation is not always financial.
It, it, it's, uh, you can't help yourself.
Like, it's like, I was thinking abouthow it's the exact same as stuff in life.
Like say for example, something, I knowa piece of information about you that

(55:44):
you should know, and loads of peopleknow about it, but they don't tell you.
I have to tell you It, it's, it's like Icannot hold myself back from telling you.
If I think you should benefit fromthis to know this, I need to tell you.
And it's the same dynamic,the same mechanic where,
like, it's very different from having aninsight and taking action on that insight.

(56:07):
And it's like that thing or, oflike you have an idea, and you're
kinda going, "Well, what areyou gonna do about your idea?"
You know?
It's like, "I think I should writea book. I'm going to write a book."
It's a very different thing where youactually take action on your insight.
And I think it's, it's more thanjust, it's, it's to be able to see di-
diverse... It's like you were sayingabout the Iain McGilchrist thing.

(56:29):
I straightaway thoughtabout Iain when you said it.
I knew exactly what you're talking about.
And it's, it's to see the sametheory or the same mechanic or
the same mechanism appear and beapplicable in different fields.
And, and it's a very,very f- different thing.
But oftentimes what happens, and, anddefinitely happened to me, and I'm sure

(56:49):
many of our audience happened, is you endup getting in trouble because you're kinda
going, "Well, that's a marketing role.
But what are you do- what are you doingmessing with marketing, Aidan?" And you
go, "Well, well, I'm, well, I'm try..."And you're like, "I'm just trying to,
I'm just trying to help because Iactually know what this thing should be
positioned as." And they go, "No, no, no.
That's marketing.
You stick to your innovation stuff."

(57:10):
And you kinda go, "And you don'tsee it that way." And then you're
like, "I know the sales guysare struggling to sell this.
Let me do a session with them and teachthem what it means and how to articulate
it and what to say to the customer."And they're kinda going, "No, no, no.
You stick with their, you stick withsale, you know, we'll stick to the sales."
And you're kinda going, "That's..." And,and that's why this diagram of going
back and forward and scribbling allover the page totally makes sense to me.

(57:33):
'Cause to the serialinnovator, it's a red thread.
It's not a lot of lines.
It's right.
You know, and, and it's funny that youeven mentioned a lot of lines because
to talk about how the innovators spoke
I'm gonna show you, um, something.
I'll show this for our audience as well.

(58:38):
So just so I, I give full attributionto this, this is a A company called
Gaping Void, and they, they sharethese, um, these beautiful images.
So there's this one that youjust reminded me of here.
I'm gonna show it on the screen.
Oh, yes.
one?
I, haven't seen the conspiracy theory, but

(59:01):
The conspiracy theory is brillIaint.
Love that.
That's-- This is a version I'venot seen, so please, if you
don't mind, if you email me that
100%.
the others, and the others areso stepwise, and I love that.
But, but I love the last one.
And, well, you know, there's themovie, "A Beautiful Mind." And, you
know, and so, you know, then thequestion is, what's the real pattern?

(59:22):
What isn't?
And, you know, I, yeah, I love this.
So I'll share that one.
L- l- let's get back on the track of,
I didn't mean to do this to you,
of the next, uh, of, uh, in our diagram.
So w- we share this idea of, of how theconvergence of generating customer and
technology understanding, that idea, thatidea of the MVP going back and forward.

(59:43):
And actually, one more thing on thisdiagram, Bruce, I'd love you to share, is
the willingness to also kill your darling.
So
Oh.
birthed this thing, you'vedone a lot of work, and the
willingness to actually do that.
But the organization doesn't understandthat and think you've wasted a fortune,
and you're kind of going, "No, no, I'vesaved us a fortune." It's glass half

(01:00:04):
That's
versus glass half empty.
"I saved us a fortune because I provedit was wrong or it was too early.
Let's put it on the back burnerand reemerge it when things are
a bit better or the technology's
Well, you know, I, I love wherethis conversation, all these
different places we've gone withit because one of the things when
100%. And, you know, just, justfull disclaimer, Bruce owns a

(01:00:27):
company that sells carrot peelers.

(01:02:35):
No, no.
You know, and it's funny, I almostalways tell people that I don't
make any money on these things,so thank you for for sharing
Okay.
Oh, actually,
So
I
w-
pre-peeled carrots iswhat I... No, I don't.
I
so let's jump onto the MP5 model.
That,
Yeah.
to MP5 and then we'll, we'llland the ship on chapter one

(01:02:58):
with, uh, figure 1.7 as well.
So jumping onto MP5now, over to you, Bruce
Yeah.
You know, MP5, and again, as I hadalluded to maybe about 10 minutes
ago, came at this with multiplestudies over time, multiple ways.
, As a quick aside, this projectwith Ray and Abby and I, it

(01:03:19):
just emerged very fortuitously.
We mentioned it in the book just briefly.
I started looking at what Icall technical visionaries.
I started getting some data, andI shared it with Ray Price in a
parking lot, of all things, one day.
Said, "You know, what are you workingon?" I said, "Ray, look at this
data." And Ray's like, "Oh, I usedto work on people, you know, like
this in companies." And Ray's got abackground in organizational behavior.

(01:03:42):
Me, you know, a PhD in engineering, butthen, you know, engineering executive.
We were told by people at NationalScience Foundation, "Oh, by the way,
about a mile away on campus, there'sAbby Griffin, who if you don't know
her, you ought to talk to her."She's working on product visionaries.
And so the three of us cametogether, and we did these multiple
studies over about a dozen years.
So we did not start out saying, "We'regonna write a book. We're gonna, you

(01:04:06):
know, we've got this image." It justemerged with these different studies.
And I'd say that one of the things thatthis MP5 model does is it documents we
made about what these people look like,if we wanted to just describe them.
another way we've talked aboutthem, is how, how their activities

(01:04:27):
play out, I'll probably talkabout that with you another time.
But this is v- meantto be very descriptive.
if you look at it, there's aninner set of circles, and then
there's the outer two rings.
And the inner set of circles are thingsthat, for the most part, people bring
with themselves, if you will, to the game.
, Perspectives on the world,and at some level, even how

(01:04:50):
they're prepared to innovate.
And these are things that, that Idon't want to say they're hardwired,
I'd say that it's just the way thesepeople, for the most part, are.
And, as a quick aside, I've beenasked, is it nature or nurture?
And, again, I'll go back to-- I'll defaultto Ray Price's wife's comment, you know,
"I, I can teach anybody to play pIaino,not all gonna, play at Carnegie Hall."

(01:05:13):
I, This a whole separate discussion.
I don't believe that everybodycan truly be an innovator of
the type we're describing.
I just think it's not there.
It's like saying everybodyought to be Pavarotti.
It's just not gonna happen,their personality is, are they,
are they curious about things?
You know, we talk aboutleft and right brain.
Do they have some tolerance for ambiguity?
Are they systems thinkers?

(01:05:34):
Do they persist with problems?
These are things that just kind of whoyou are as a person, whether you're
gonna be in a business situationor, at home over a cup of coffee
with, you know, family members.
The perspectives theybring, -- it's fascinating.
They're, they're kind of simultaneouslyidealistic and pragmatic.
pragmatic because if they're technicalpeople, they say that, you know,

(01:05:56):
technology is there to serve the business.
They're not just, if you will,having fun tinkering in the lab.
But they're idealistic in that theyreally want to do their best, best.
Earlier, you had talked aboutthis insight, and you just have
to share it with people, you know?
And it's like that.
They're just like this.
And then I'm gonna justjump to the motivation side.

(01:06:17):
They're internally motivated tosolve customer problems, and that
motivation just is just-- they'rejust drenched with that motivation.
I was in a meeting, Friday with a groupof CEOs, but also senior executives
and general managers of divisions.
And they were talking about the challengesthey had in, if you will, they didn't call

(01:06:38):
it this explicitly, but motivating theiremployees and how do we get, how do we get
someone to rise up and do this and that?
sitting there thinking about the serialinnovator work, and I'm thinking, you
ought to hire-- and not to disparagethem because they're amazing people.
But I'm thinking, you're trying to, withyour energy and effort, people to act.
The better approach would be to hirepeople that are self-motivated and then

(01:07:02):
provide them the context to work within.
And yet all these people got therebecause they are just so in the best
sense, driven and motivated, and thenthey have to let go of that to find other
people who are driven and motivated ina different, very complementary way.
Because these serial innovators, noneof them are aspiring to be the CEO
of the company, and, that's why Idraw the distinction with Steve Jobs,

(01:07:25):
because these are different people.
And then preparation, you know, I've oftentalked about these, the serial innovators
as being multiply deep and broad.
They usually start withone technical domain.
I mean, Tom Osborne, technicaldomain with, chemistry,
related analytic chemistry.
But then, you know, he goes intothe, to the workplace, and he

(01:07:45):
learns deeply about feminine hygieneproducts, and then he learns deeply
about the market and customer needs.
And then they're broad in that, you askthese people about their hobbies and oh my
gosh, I mean, you know, all over the map.
And it's just because they're--they go back to their personality.
They're curious about things.
So that's kind of whatyou bring to the table.

(01:08:06):
And then the process and politics,are the things that you see
emerge more likely in the businesssetting, and they can be developed.
If I were to do this chart today, wouldprobably less of a distinction about what
you bring and what you develop, becauseI think at some level, the process and

(01:08:27):
politics are inherent in the peoplewho are more naturally successful.
But the politics, and we'll-- I'msure we'll discuss this at a later
time, a choice that these people make,at times because they're not always
inclined to navigate the organization.
But they ne- if they want toserve the customer need, they
know they have to do that.
And so the politics is takingownership, of this idea.

(01:08:51):
Again, this, your comment earlierabout I've got this insight, I
just have to share it with you.
I have to bring people along with this.
As we'll discuss later, we usedto refer to that as crossing the
bridge because it's, you know, asanother quick aside , you know,
I'm an engineer, , by personality.
I don't know if you've heard engineersare-- You can tell if an engineer
is an extrovert 'cause they'relooking at your shoes, you know?

(01:09:13):
so, so it's painful attimes for me to sell myself.
In fact, when you earlier said,you know, "I hate to ask for
people to click," I thought, "Oh,I can relate to that," you know?
but it's the politics.
It's bringing people along theorganization because you know you can't,
you can't fulfill those customer needsunless you bring people along with you.
And then the process-- And thisgoes back to, I don't wanna say

(01:09:37):
shattering the phase gate or stagegate, 'cause that's really not fair.
It's a useful process to look at, saying,you know, it really doesn't describe
what goes on, and we have to overlaysomething, maybe this is disparaging,
more nuanced than the stage gate.
But, stage gate is greatfor incremental, projects.

(01:09:57):
It's great for technology push ormarket pull, for the most part.
But when you're looking at thingsthat are breakthroughs, that are
really redefining competition,it's not gonna look like that.
And this is just from observation.
This is-- In fact, I'll quickly say noneof this is meant to be prescriptive.
It's all descriptive, Aidan.

(01:10:17):
And we'll describe the HourglassModel, which is the main core model
in the book,, on the next episode,but we'll finish chapter one.
I pulled a little excerpt and Ijust thought it was really worth
saying, and I had loads by the way.
I just shut up today I stepped into the
Please.
cause I had so manylittle l- nuggets I loved.
You said here that, " unlike other highlycreative individuals studied previously

(01:10:38):
in great depth-" These serial innovatorsoperate in the context of an organization.
Serial innovators tend to workat the , middle level of their
organizations, whereas theprevious literature has focused on
individuals creating independentlyoutside an organizational context.
That's a big thing.
Serial innovators do not holdpositions of power that would

(01:10:58):
force acceptance of their projects.
That is huge.
That point is huge.
Consequently, they must develop theability to interact successfully within
their organizational environment.
They must manage the politics of theorganization to gain acceptance for their
customer problem they want to solve.
They know that they must sell theirideas to others, and they have to

(01:11:19):
work the political issues upwards tomanagement laterally with others needed
to do the job, externally with customersand other expertise who they need.
They depend on influencing othersto gain acceptance and resources.
Generally, they focus on positiveinfluencing actions rather than
coercion or negative mechanisms.

(01:11:39):
This political understanding enablesthese serial innovators to transfer
interesting ideas and creative conceptsinto the implementation-focused
commercialization process.
That whole piece isexhausting to say for me.
W-
Yeah, I'm glad you read it.
I would've wanted to read it, so thank
exhausting for an innovator, exhaustingto have to do that, and I, I often think

(01:12:03):
about it like a game of Snakes and Laddersbecause not just the concept of you go
up the ladder and then y- meet a snake,but there are snakes in the organization
who will actually be out to stop you.
Like you were saying, I'm not sayingit didn't happen, Tom Osborne, but
people who have their identity tied tothe status quo of the existing product

(01:12:24):
that you're attacking or undermining intheir view versus improving and doing
the what's best for the organization.
But in there, there's a huge, huge jobthat is the job , do I want to do this?
Because it is a huge weight.
It's a huge drain on energy.
It's hard enough to do your jobanyway without having to do this.

(01:12:45):
I used to say this idea, Bruce,that it was like in, in a previous
organization I worked in was veryinnovative and commercial, and I was
able to touch my toes very easily.
Then I went into this organizationthat was a public organization.
Everybody, most people did not wantto change, and it was like somebody

(01:13:07):
put a massive fat suit on me, andI couldn't touch my toes anymore.
And I was like, "This used to beso easy." And that was draining.
It was actually demoralizing,draining, damaging.
You felt gaslit, ostracized.
There's so much that you take onwhen you go for this, and I always

(01:13:27):
just want to ensure somebody who isthinking of this role understands
this part that you talk about as
Oh, you know, uh, severalthings come to mind.
One is it's, it's a bit like Sisyphus.
You just keep pushing thatboulder up a hill every day.
The other is, and this probablywould've come up naturally later,
but it's so appropriate to say now.
One of the people we interviewedsaid, "I wanna hire people , not that

(01:13:52):
they wanna be an innovator, but theywanna do the work that innovators
do." And think about that distinction.
And so that, that paragraph or so that youread, that's the work that innovators do.
And that's partly why I will-- And Idon't think we had this in the book.
I think this is somethingthat kind of struck me later.
These are the most important peopleyou've never heard of And not just

(01:14:13):
for solving customer problems, butI often talk about how they, they,
sure they solve customer problems.
They address the needs of executives.
They address the needsof their colleagues.
They're helping people keep employed.
They're addressing shareholder needs.
I mean, they're really simultaneouslysolving, if you will, the whole
equation in a potentially hostile--it it may not be hostile, it may

(01:14:34):
be just an indifferent environment.
And yet they have the will andthe drive and the skill that they
develop or have to, to pursue it.
And so, yeah, that's whythe politics is, is huge.
I think it's always so important tosay because I know so many serial
innovators and they feel they'rethe problem because the organization

(01:14:54):
makes them feel they're the problem.
But it's also, it's notcommercially driven.
It's in you.
It's like you have to solve it, andthere's that problem about, like,
well, I also have a family and amortgage or whatever responsibilities
you have, and you're kindagoing, "I need to balance that."
So that's why I say it's situational,that sometimes you might go, "I'm not
up for this fight. It's too big at themoment. Maybe this period of my career."

(01:15:19):
And I c- I can understand all of that.
But let, let's land the ship on the lastdiagram from this because you do have
another diagram that goes, well, this ismore like what a serial innovators does,
which is, , diagram 1.7 from the book.
And by the way, for anybody who'sa Substack member, you can find my
show notes on our Substack as well.
And, Bruce, for people, before wefinish and go through this, where is

(01:15:42):
the best place for people to find you?
Oh, um, uh, I have a website.
Uh, the consulting businessthat I operate is, uh, called
Breakthrough Innovation Advisors.
Uh, so if you just look forbreakthrough-innovation-advisors.com,
you'll find that.
But, you know, LinkedIn, Aidan.
I should have started with
LinkedIn.
I,
I'm,
I'm
that's the go-to place,

(01:16:02):
gonna link to you.
that'll, get you anywhere you need,
I'll link to you, and I'llput those links in as well.
But I'd love you to take usthrough this innovation process,
uh, used by serial innovators.
Yeah, you know, this is in contrast to theStage-Gate, as we talked about earlier.
And it starts in the upper left.
I often liken this to, like,the Bohr model of an atom.

(01:16:23):
You know, you know, where'sthe electron in this model?
Well, it's kinda-- it could be justabout anywhere at any point in time.
But usually these people come intothe situation where, you know, as
you said, and I've maybe belaboredthis, but they're motivated to solve
a customer problem, and they're veryoften assigned something to work on.
And, , but it may notbe the right problem.

(01:16:44):
And so they'll often, initiallyat least, try to understand
what's the right problem to solve.
And, we look at, again, to use TomOsborne's story as a An overlay to this.
His deep understanding--Well, I'll come back to that.
He didn't-- In the end, hedidn't necessarily solve the
problem he was assigned to solve.
But we'll come back to this.

(01:17:04):
So they look to try to find the rightproblem, and then once they're- they
have a problem that they're generallysatisfied with, actually, a number
of them said that it takes as muchtime to solve a good problem as a bad
problem, so why not solve somethingthat's important address something?
And then they really deeply understand it.
And this goes to what I had mentionedearlier about how not just letting go

(01:17:25):
of your hang-ups, it's that deep dive.
It's collecting the dots, if you will,and in some way finding the meaning
of, of a collected set of dots.
What's the pattern?
necessarily the dragon in yourconspiracy theory that you showed a
moment ago, but it's looking for thepattern that really truly does exist.
then once you think you've understoodit enough, then you begin to say, "You

(01:17:47):
know, I think there's a concept, aproduct concept." Or-- And I should add,
too, the book's written heavily froma product perspective, but you know,
innovation processes, business models.
Again, we're talking discovery here.
This could be overlaid on any--It c- this could be overlaid on
me, as I said earlier, learninghow to use my gas grill, you know?
, You try things, you, you inventthings, and you validate.

(01:18:10):
You come up with ideas, and you test them.
And, the extent that you find somethinggood, you move down to the lower left.
That's kind of the stage gate,, the right side of that process
that I spoke about earlier.
developed iteratively.
And then before market launch, there's anactivity that these people get involved in
often of helping create market acceptance.

(01:18:31):
An example that I might use is if youhave a consumer product, , that involves
something that's ingested, , let's saya toothpaste, for example, you're gonna
be working with the FDA to be surethat not only the person who picks it
up off the shelf is gonna buy it, butthe FDA is gonna allow you to buy it.
Or in Nancy's case, that you can'tcall Pringles a chip, a potato chip.

(01:18:53):
It's a crisp, you know?
And she can tell thestory better than I can.
But you're working to createmarket acceptance by, by not just
limiting yourself to that one area.
And then you launch.
And what makes this different, acouple things, but one of the big
ways it's different from the stagegate is that y- you don't necessarily
go through this in a linear way.

(01:19:14):
And so you might get to the, let'ssay you get to the invent and validate
stage, and it's just not working for you.
And in a way you could argue thatTom Osborne was given a problem,
he understood the problem deeply.
He was inventing and validatingbased on this diaper paradigm.
And he's saying, "You know, I don'tthink this is the right problem."

(01:19:35):
back and tries to understand it more.
"I don't think it's the rightproblem." He goes back to innovate
and v- "I, I don't think this isthe right problem." And you know, he
didn't maybe say it quite that way.
And he goes back to the upper leftand he goes, "Ah, this might be the
problem." And then it's not as muchfinding a technology that solves the
initial problem, identifying a problemthat needs to be solved and addressed.

(01:19:59):
so the-- and you'll see this whenwe get to the hourglass model,
I'll anticipate it, but I will--we don't need to go there now.
We shouldn't go there now.
The point of all this is thatthese are all different states
have to reside in at some level,before a serial innovator succeeds.
The upper half is typicallyconsistent with the fuzzy front end.

(01:20:22):
The lower half is typicallyconsistent with the stage gate.
Consistent.
And, , , again, it'sjust, it's very different.
But again, I would challenge anybody who'slearning to play a musical instrument to,
uh, again, learn to use that gas grill.
And, you know, I'm not bad at it,but I'm not where I need to be on

(01:20:42):
some things, is to look at this.
And I mention that in part because, did a workshop once with a group
of people who were on a productionline talking about innovation.
And that's a whole separate discussionbecause I don't even think that's really,
you know, this idea box approach to life.
saying, "Look, you guysare doing this at home.
You've got these hobbies." Wetalked earlier about hobbies.

(01:21:03):
You've got these other interests.
How do you discover what to do there?
And I'm gonna bring it backto, you mentioned about,
what a process looks like.
A lot of companies will tryto boil it down to plan, do,
check, and act, the Deming view.
And I'm gonna be clear,I am a big fan of Deming.
I'm a big fan of Lean and SixSigma, so you know, none of

(01:21:25):
this is meant to be negative.
But have you ever asked yourself,where does that plan come from?
It's like asking the questionabout the fuzzy front end.
Where do those ideas come from?
And that's really where myinterests have been since.
And I think this model is consistent thisact, this very human, very personal act
of discovery that I see innovation to be.

(01:21:49):
why I'm so, such a big fan of these peoplethat w- we've met, because just live it.
They just d- they just dothis as a, an activity.
And I'm realizing the time, Aidan.
I almost apologize.
at all.
Not at all, man.
You ne- you never have todo that with this show.
have.
Okay.
It's a, it's an absolute joy, andI just wanna tell our audience,
we've only got through chapter one.

(01:22:11):
We, we covered the, a little bit ofthe intro, but chapter one, and I, I'm
very grateful for you, Bruce, for goingthrough those diagrams with that depth.
I think the richness, along with readingthe book, I, I also, by the way, I have
the Kindle version and the audiobook,and now the opportunity to go through
this, and, and you know, it's one ofthe things I wanna say, you mention

(01:22:33):
it and I, I talk about this often, isthat to connect dots, you first have to
collect them, and it's one of the thingsthat I think innovators do naturally.
And as you say, just because you collectsome music CDs or vinyl doesn't mean
you're gonna be playing in Carnegie Hall.

(01:22:53):
That's
right, even
but at least you gotta be.
You gotta, you gotta, you firstlygotta have some knowledge in the
first place, and I really do see itas the reason why we do this work.
For me, it changed my life when Ihad new dots and I had new lenses and
I could see the world differently.
Changed my world because myworldview changed, and I had lots of

(01:23:15):
different ways of seeing the world.
I could now articulate it in ways Inever could before with confidence, and
I think that that's what this work does.
That's what this book does.
It opens it up for other people.
But you gotta do the work.
Like, you can't bluff this.
You can't bluff it.
absolutely.
I'm cheering you on here,Aidan, 'cause I, you.
In fact, a lot of the way I vieweven discussing this today is

(01:23:37):
informed on things that I'veseen since we wrote the book.
Well, it's a, a joy having you,Bruce, and I look forward to part two.
So, so,
That's great.
Thank you so

author of Serial Innovators (01:23:46):
How Individuals Create and Deliver
Breakthrough Innovations inMature Firms, part one, Bruce
Vojack, thanks for joining us.
Thank
you.
Thanks again to our sponsor Kyndryl,who runs and reimagines the technology
systems that drive advantage forthe world's leading businesses.
With a unique blend of AI-poweredconsulting built on unmatched managed

(01:24:09):
service capability, Kyndryl helps leadersharness the power of technology for
smarter decisions, faster innovation,and a lasting competitive edge.
You can find Kyndryl at K-Y-N-D-R-Y-L.com.
And don't forget, checkout the Kyndryl Institute.
You can download theKyndryl Institute app.
There's brillIaint ar- articles byformer guests on the show, future

(01:24:30):
guests of the show, and a wide rangeof brillIaint thinkers and people.
You can find that atKyndryl.com/institute.
See you next week