Innovation: Think Inside the Box

by

Not sure how many times I’ve heard the worn phrases of “think outside the box”, “brainstorm”, “explore new perspectives”, across my career.  Now, I’m not saying that these concepts don’t have merit.  I am however, saying that most often, the best innovation comes from “thinking inside the box”. Systematic inventive thinking: the power of thinking inside the box (nesslabs.com)

The proper technical term or concept for thinking inside the box is systematic inventing thinking. The theory originated in the 1940s with a Russian engineer named Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues, who analyzed over 200,000 patents to uncover the formula for innovation. They pinpointed 40 common inventive principles, including “The Other Way Around,” “Blessing in Disguise,” and “Continuity of Useful Action.”

The 40 inventive principles were amalgamated to formulate a creativity equation known as the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, more commonly referred to by its Russian acronym, TRIZ.

The TRIZ Matrix - Thinking outside the box

Granted, this is a complex matrix, and I only added the graphic to illustrate the depth of this “inside the box” approach. Thinking within the box requires a change in perspective: it suggests that all the components necessary for innovation are already present and that finding a solution simply involves rearranging what exists.

I talk with lots of providers ranging from CCRCs/Life Plan to IL to AL, SNF, and systems that often tell me that they need some sort of external stimulus to become innovative.  The common thread is about capital but also, about ideas. The staff attend conferences, see shiny new things at tradeshows and think, the ideas and shiny things will make the organization “innovative”; but there’s a catch.

If the cause of a lack of innovation is flaws internally, or perhaps, adherence to traditions or rituals no longer applicable, nothing external will create innovation.  Simply put, new ideas from outside are not universally applicable to all organizations and in fact, rarely do those ideas make sense without adjustments internal to take advantage of the new.

For example, I’ve watched organizations buy lots of software that purportedly automates all kinds of documentation tasks, generating care plans, documentation via click the box, etc. The purchase logic is that by having the software, more time will be available for care and care will improve and patient satisfaction will increase as will compliance. Rarely have I seen the outcome match the justification.  The result is like a weekend do-it-yourselfer buying an expensive power tool. If the user doesn’t know how to use the tool, the tool is underutilized and ineffective.  A simpler analogy: me buying a $500 driver for my $5.00 golf swing – lessons are needed first, not a new driver.

The application of inside the box innovation emanates from a five-prong platform, I like approach (and used it throughout my career including in the development of my patent) because its logical and mathematical (though doesn’t require math necessarily).

  • Subtraction. Is there anything you can remove from the equation? Numerous innovative products have revolutionized their markets by eliminating features. In a domain dominated by recorders, Sony introduced the Walkman by omitting the recording capability. Similarly, the iPhone faced criticism for discarding the headphone jack, yet this move paved the way for the widespread adoption of the highly successful AirPods.
  • Multiplication. Is there any element you can multiply? More menu options in restaurants or new options. Choices on variations to existing themes.  For example, in CCRCs, can you offer residents more services without adding fees or even with additional fees.  I like multiplication, especially now, as CCRCs can really create competitive advantages by adding health services that take advantage of existing overhead (e.g., home health).
  • Division. By dividing a problem or product into smaller elements, you can then reorganize them to find a solution or form a new product. Dividing a space into smaller spaces with more use options is a way to create potential revenue from underused common space. Dividing the staffing day into bigger or smaller shifts to meet staff needs and demands for flexibility. A favorite that I used across many companies I ran – diving benefit programs into staff drive choices, aka flex benefit options. This approach allows the overall compensation dollar to become more tailored to staff desires/needs.
  • Task unification. Can several tasks be unified under a single element?  The home button of a smart phone performs several functions depending on how you press it. This approach is particularly important in keeping an organization lean.  I rarely had my leadership teams focusing on just their “box”. They had broad assignments, maximizing their talents.  I also minimized supervisors and managers by giving staff more control over tasks like scheduling, education, quality assurance, etc.
  • Attribute dependency. Many products have internal and external dependencies. Breaking these dependencies or creating new intentional dependencies can lead to innovation. For example, car radios that increase and decrease the volume according to the speed of the car. In a SNF, medication administration can be simplified through automation and through pharmacotherapeutic drug care plans. Timing can be everything and in turn, create an innovation such that simplified medication regimes, reduce polypharmacy, improve care and staff productivity.

If you liked this post, please check out some of the other leadership themed posts on this site (couple of examples below).

 

Leave a Comment