Basketball & Innovation

"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet."
-- Willliam Gibson

What if the future of innovation ... or at least clues to the future ... could be found on the basketball court?

Fundamental changes in one realm often precede changes in another. So let's look at something happening in the world of professional basketball:  the NBA's trend toward drafting players from other countries.  This year 32% of the draft picks were foreign-born (82 players from 36 countries versus 21 foreign players in 1992). The San Antonio Spurs, trying for their third title in four years, has seven international players.  (From "USA Today" article by Greg Boeck 4/19/06 ... Google "changing NBA")

The question is "why?"  The answer seems to be two-fold:  better fundamental skills and more of a team approach.  European basketball centers around an extensive feeder system that develops players with solid fundamental shooting, passing and team strategy skills.  Kids as young as six join mini-basketball clubs sponsored by professional teams such as Benetton Treviso, one of the top professional European basketball clubs.  NBA teams recognize the solid fundamentals and view the Europeans as "less risky" draft picks because they are "more coachable, more socialized."  They play five-on-five which is turning out to be a more winning approach than the slam-dunk, one-on-one style of flair and flash that US players prefer.

What's this have to do with innovation?

Think about the "innovation system" in most organizations.  We focus on stars and yearn for the big plays ... the breakthroughs ... the *radical* innovations.  And, our feeder system is ... well, it is basically non-existent.  Where do people go to learn how to do innovation?  Where  do they learn the innovation skills equivalent to shooting, passing, dribbling?  Where do they learn the strategy of the game and how to play "five-on-five?"  For most organizations today, the answer is still a resounding silence.

No wonder we have a 96% failure rate for innovation projects.  (Larry Keeley, Doblin, Inc.)

We're still acting as if there's a lone genius somewhere in the basement who will toss up a breakthrough every once in a while ... or that we can build a basketball court (a new piece of idea management software) and everyone will immediately start shooting three-pointers (creating ideas that generate buckets of new revenue).

If something as fundamentally simple as basketball requires skill development, coaching, understanding strategy and playing together as a team, why do we think something as complex as innovation can be successful without any of that?  Isn't it time that we stopped just talking about innovation and got serious about developing the capability required to actually do it?

What if we set up "farm teams" in our organizations ... situations where people could learn innovative thinking skills and practice innovation before moving up to the "majors."  (I know I'm mixing my sports metaphors.)

What if we had a commonly agreed-upon set of skills necessary for innovation?  (This is something we've been working on for some time and we'd love to have conversations with anyone interested in this area.)

What if we took innovation as seriously as we do basketball, baseball and football?

Comments

[Renee Hopkins Callahan]

Hi Joyce! I think this is a *great* idea. And a wonderful analogy. I've talked about an "apprenticeship" model for learning innovation before -- I got into a conversation on IdeaFlow last year with some folks about it -- you can see those posts here: http://ideaflow.corante.com/archives/apprentice_mind/

:) renee

[Sally Boyd]

This sounds like a good idea -- and a useful exercise, but I'm not sure how the application would work. I am currently working on a project for developing competency profiles for several positions within my company. A tool is being developed to manage these competencies (and gaps, etc).

If we identified the competencies needed for innovation, and added them to all profiles as a "functional skill" -- would we then take people identified with high levels of competencies in these skills and pull them into "special projects" to be innovative? Or if we developed those skills and left the people in place, do you think that (some) innovation would happen naturally?

If we assume the latter (that some innovation would happen naturally), would that then give us the tools to influence change in areas that could stifle innovation in an organization (motivation, reward, recognition, etc.)? And would that then further increase innovation in the organization?

Sorry to ask so many questions, but this has aroused my curiosity. ;-)