第七十三篇 　Confronting the ‘No’ in Innovation

本帖最后由 小编D 于 2012-12-25 15:15 编辑

请对以下文章有翻译兴趣的组员留下你的预计完成时间和邮箱地址，以便小编登记翻译者信息以及文章最终完成时间。

翻译：ccsspp454 校稿：275641119


Confronting the ‘No’ in Innovation

面对创新中的“不”

Maybe we should change the word to innewvation
也许我们应该改变 “innovation” 创新这个单词为“innewvation”。

The Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence defines innovation as “making meaningful change to improve products, processes, or organizational effectiveness and creating new value for stakeholders.”
鲍德里奇卓越绩效准则解释创新为“创造有意义的改变来提高产品，流程，或者组织有效性并为股东创造新的价值”。

Innovation involves the adoption of an idea, process, technology, product, or business model that is either new or new to its proposed application. The outcome of innovation is a discontinuous or breakthrough change in results, products, or processes. Successful organizational innovation is a multistep process that involves development and knowledge sharing, a decision to implement, implementation, evaluation, and learning. Although innovation is often associated with technological innovation, it is applicable to all key organizational processes that would benefit from change, whether through breakthrough improvement or a change in approach or outputs. It could include fundamental changes in organizational structure or the business model to more effectively accomplish the organization’s work.
创新包括一个创意、过程、技术、产品或者新的抑或对预设的应用是新的之商业模式。创新的结果是不连续的或者在结果、产品、过程有突破性改变。成功的组织创新是一个多级的过程包括开发、知识分享、决策的实施、执行、评价和学习。尽管创新经常是与技术创新相联系的，它适用于得益于改变的所有关键的组织化流程，这种不管通过突破性改善还是方法或者结果的一个改变。它能包含组织结构的根本变化或者更有效完成组织工作的商业模式。

If innovation is this broad in concept, why is it so unusual or infrequent in practice? This question struck me recently, when two separate incidents crying for obvious innovations resulted in my disappointment with uninspired customer service. The first was an interaction with my bank. I had a certificate of deposit that was coming due on a day when I was going to be travelling. I called the bank the day before the maturity date and asked that the money be transferred to my checking account on the next day. They said they could do it if I called back the next day. I explained my situation and asked if they could note it and just follow through the next day. The answer was, “Unfortunately no, not doable.”
如果创新在理念上如此宽泛，为什么在实践中它是如此不寻常或者罕见？这个问题最近打击着我，当两个独立的事件迫切需要显著的创新结果在我因缺乏创见的客户服务而失望。第一件事就是我和我的银行交往。我有一个存款单当我打算去旅游的某一天它将到期。到期日前一天我给银行打电话并要求第二天把钱转移到支票户头。他们说如果我第二天再打电话他们能做这件事。我解释我的处境并要求如果他们能记录这件事，第二天只要按照要求完成就行。

The second incident occurred in a bureaucratic setting. It involved a request for an exception to a policy, but one for which there was precedent. Several reasons were presented why this case would be challenging at the current time. Outside the office there was a sign, “Your link to innovative administrative solutions.”
第二天事情发生在一个官僚背景。它涉及政策的一个例外一个要求，但之前是有先例的。一些原因出席，为什么这件事情将富有挑战性在当前时间下。办公室外面有个标识“你的连接创新行政管理方法”

I brooded about these occurrences and then rapidly generalized to opportunities for innovation that we all have. Why are innovations so hard to come by? Not the acts of great genius, but the other innovations that could build customer loyalty or create a strategic advantage in the marketplace, without a generational breakthrough. I wonder, are people inspired by the “no” in innovation? Maybe we should change the word to innewvation?
我苦思这些事件，于是迅速概括我们都有的创新的机会。为什么创新获得如此艰难？并不是伟大天才的行为，但是另一个创新能建立客户忠诚度或者在市场上制造战略优势。超过一代突破性进展。我想知道人们在不断创新中“不”受到启发？也许我们应该改变 “innovation” 创新这个单词为“innewvation”。

Here are five patterns of behavior that lead me to conjecture that people are subconsciously inspired by the “no” in innovation.
Policy. We have policies in our organizations that make it easy to justify the status quo or saying no to a new idea. It appears to be the right thing to rely on policy; that’s why policies were created. And generally sticking with current policy will be the safest and securest course. Furthermore, doing so generally requires less work than breaking with policy, no matter how good the idea.
这里给出五种行为模式，牵引我推测人类通过创新中的“不”受潜意识的启发。政策。在我们组织中我们有政策（证明现状是很容易的或者对一个新思想说不）。依赖政策似乎是正确的事情：那就是制定政策的原因。一般来说坚持现行政策将是最安全和安全的过程。此外，做如此普遍的要求工作少于与政策绝交，不管这个思想是多么的好。

Tradition. “We have always done it this way.” “It is the way we do things.” “It has served us well for many years.” “There must be a good reason why we have this tradition; it is rooted in our glorious history.” “The tradition has been a source of our sustainability.” “Why break tradition? It is risky; it could negatively impact my career.”
传统。“我们一直就这样做的”“这就是我们做事的方式”“”“那一定有一个很好的理由我们为什么有这个传统，这要追溯到我们的光荣历史”“这个传统已经成为一种我们持续性资源”“为什么打破传统？它是有风险的，它能消极的影响我的职业生涯”

Entrenched ideas or beliefs. We all have entrenched ideas and beliefs that come from our upbringing, our education, and our life’s experiences. These are areas where we do not think about stepping out of the familiar. These ideas or beliefs are part of what we are; they are ingrained. They are part of our basic self. The thought of changing them just does not occur to us.
根深蒂固的观念或信念。我们都有来自于我们的教养、我们的教育和我们生活经验根深蒂固的观念或信念。这些是我们不考虑跳出我们所熟悉的区域。这些观念或者信念是我们是什么的部分，它们是根深蒂固的。它们是我们基本自我的部分，对我们来说改变他们想法是不会发生的。

Fear of intelligent risk. I define intelligent risk as an opportunity for which the potential gain outweighs the harm or loss that could impact the organization’s sustainability if the opportunity is not explored. Nevertheless, intelligent or not, it is a risk. And we have become increasingly risk-averse. Leading organizations encourage risk taking and reward both success and failure. They also have processes for evaluating risk and making intelligent decisions.
智能风险的担心。我定义智能风险为一种机会，这种机会潜在收益大于损害或者损失，如果没有创造机会，这种损失能影响组织可持续性。然而，只能或者不，这是一种风险。我们已经变得越来越规避风险。领导组织鼓励勇于冒险和奖赏成功和失败。他们同样有风险评估和做出明智决策的过程。

Asking the wrong questions. Sometimes we ask the familiar or immediate question, rather than asking the more global or innovation-generating question. For example, we may ask about the next-generation photographic film, rather than asking about next-generation image recording. We may ask about faster letter delivery, rather than faster message delivery. While the answer to the more global question may not be as easy, it is the one that can lead to the true breakthroughs—the breakthroughs that lead to generational changes in products or processes.
询问错了问题。有时我们询问相似的或者立即的问题，而不是询问更多的全球性或者创新产生的问题。例如，我们可以询问下一代胶卷，而不是询问下一代图像记录。我们可以询问更快的信件寄送而不是更快的信息传递，更全球性问题的答案可能不是很容易，它是能导致真正突破性进展，这种突破性进展导致在产品或者过程代际变化。

How often does each of us fall into one of these patterns? How might we combat these triggers for a lack of innewvation? Here are a few suggestions:
我们中的每个人多久陷入这些模型之一呢？我们针对缺乏创新可能如何打击这些触发器？下面给出一些建议：

Whenever you are about to practice one of the above enablers of innovation, take a step back and think if there might be a better innewvative answer or approach instead.
每当你将练习上述创新因素之一，退后一步并想想，看是否有一种更好的创新答案或者方法来替代。

When faced with a challenge, first ask yourself if there is a bigger challenge of which this is a subset and whether you should be addressing the bigger, more global challenge.
当面临挑战时，首先询问自己如果有一个这是一个更大的挑战的子集， 你是否应该访问更大的一个，更全球化的挑战。

Try to train yourself to think “outside the box” as your first line of thought—not necessarily for everything, but certainly for things that are important.
试着训练你自己来思考“创造性思考”作为你思想的第一行——没有必要对所有事情，但必定对重要的事情。

Finally, “new and improved” is sometimes just different, but not better. So ask yourself, “Is this just different?” If the answer is yes, ask yourself, “What would truly be better?” The answer might be the next big innewvation!
最后，“经过改进的新一代”有时仅仅是不同，但不更好。因此要求你自己“这是仅仅不同吗？”，如果结果是肯定的，要求你自己“什么才是真正的更好？”，答案也许是下一次更大创新。


That’s it for this column. If you want to get some ideas about possible innewvations for your organization, learn from the best—our
national role models, Baldrige Award recipients. Attend the upcoming Baldrige Quest for Excellence conference in April. Happy innewvating!
就是这一列。如果你想得到一些你们组织可行的创新注意，从最好的学习——我们国家角色模型，波多里奇奖接受者。
参加四月份即将到来的波多里奇追求卓越会议。开心的进行创新。

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
作者简介

Harry Hertz
哈里.赫兹

Harry Hertz, Ph.D., is the director of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, the nation’s public-private partnership dedicated to performance excellence and the overseer of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Hertz joined the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 1973 as a research chemist and has served in several management positions including director of the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory. He is the author, co-author, and editor of more than 50 publications including several of the Criteria for Performance Excellence, and he holds one patent. He serves on advisory committees for the Conference Board, the United Way of America, and the American Customer Satisfaction Index.
哈里.赫兹博士是波多里奇卓越绩效计划主任，国家公私伙伴关系致力于卓越绩效和波里奇国家质量奖的监督员。赫兹在1973年作为一名从事研究工作的化学家加入国家标准和技术研究所（NIST）并担任多个管理岗位，包括化学科学和技术实验室主任。他是作者、合著者并编辑过超过50部出版物，包括一些卓越绩效准则并且他拥有一项专利。他在世界大企业联合会、美国联合之路和美国顾客满意度指数担任咨询委员会。