Total Innovation Podcast

24: Victoria Milne - ISO56001

• The Infinity Loop • Season 2 • Episode 24

Share episode

Victoria spearheads global innovation initiatives and excellence in innovation management and methodologies, leveraging emerging and advanced technologies across diverse industries. She achieves outstanding growth through qualitative and quantitative research, strategy, accelerator management, challenge-led technology pilots, innovation ecosystems, senior leadership engagement, facilitation, thought leadership, design thinking, concept, proposition and business case development and creative problem solving and business management. With a Masters (distinction) in innovation management and a PGDip in Business Administration, her career is a testament to her passion for achieving substantial commercial and strategic outcomes and impact through innovation.

She is the UK Head of Delegation at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC 279 for innovation management, where she sits on the advisory group for communications and engagement (AGCE) and has actively contributed to the drafting, development and refinement of ISO 56001 (The first global auditable innovation management system standard), ISO 56002 and ISO 56007 (Idea and opportunity guidance). She is a technical expert committee member for the British Standards Institution (BSI) for design and innovation management.

Her sectors include fintech, transport, IOT, FMCG, pharma, to marine, mining, infrastructure and more in both B2C and B2B markets. She has been a leading design mentor for the UK KTN Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), a £1.5 billion fund that supports cutting-edge research to address challenges faced by developing countries. She also developed a design thinking training methodology funded by the UK Government in conjunction with Imperial College London's Dyson School of Design Engineering, which significantly improved indicators of performance for SMEs.

Victoria is agile certified, a qualified industrial designer, and an expert trainer on the full suite of ISO 56000 for INNOVATEUK Edge Specialists on behalf of BSI. She has published and presented her research papers on innovation competencies and standardised innovation management systems at the International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

After leading a management buy out 8 years ago, she was at the helm of a boutique innovation management consultancy, Tenshi Consulting Ltd., ensuring daily operations and the ongoing success of the business. She recently successfully exited and has founded her latest endeavour - Verity Merit.

Simon Hill:

Welcome to the Total Innovation Podcast, where we explore the people, principles and practices driving real world innovation today. I'm your host, as always, Simon Hill, and in today's episode, we're diving into a topic that sparks debate amongst many innovators and innovation teams around the world. Question is, can, or maybe should innovation be systematized? Should it be a profession? If it is a profession, are we in danger of turning something innately creative and exploratory into a box ticking exercise, or even worse to head this big, bold question? I'm joined today by Victoria Mil, the UK head of delegation for ISO Innovation Standards, a driving force behind ISO 56,001 and the founder of Verity Merit. Victoria's an accomplished innovation management consultant, trainer, and thought leader. She's helped shaped innovation ecosystems and strategies across industries as diverse as FinTech to mining led government-backed research, and worked with top institutions like Imperial College and BSI, the British Standards Institutes amongst many different projects. She's working currently alongside me and a number of others on an accreditation pathway for innovation professionals. Think a Chartered Institute for Innovation Management or something similar. If you care about making innovation more impactful, more intentional, then this is the episode for you. And with that, welcome to the podcast, Victoria.

Victoria Milne:

Oh, thank you Simon. It's so lovely to join you today.

Simon Hill:

Yeah, I'm excited for this one. As I said, I think this topic of systematizing innovation and, you know, is it a, is it a profession? Is it a process? Is it a pipe dream? Um, hopefully not. Is uh, is a good one to, to dig into. And I know that you've spent. Quite a bit of the last few years and maybe more than that, uh, working on this and, and agonizing about it. So I'm excited to, to have this conversation. Uh, maybe I give a quick introduction, but why don't you just quickly just, just set the scene for Soak and, you know, it's always nice to introduce yourself as well as to be introduced.

Victoria Milne:

Well, um, I, uh, got involved in, in standards writing actually through my, um, industrial design background. Um, and, uh, joined the, the committee at BSI and then was asked to join, uh, the ISO committee that's responsible for writing innovation management system standards. And that all began because there was a request from. The European network to develop a standard that helped to determine whether grants and public funding that was given to organizations to innovate was being given to the right organizations. Um, and so that's really where this all started out to say how can we tell if an organization is going to be innovative? As opposed to whether or not they had a one hit wonder, a one, one great idea. Um, so that that funding was being given to them, not for incremental growth, but for exponential growth, because that's what you wanna see when you, you give grants to organizations for innovation that they take that and they, they run with it. It doesn't just help them to get over one hurdle, but it actually clears the way for them to be, to grow and to improve on productivity. So that's where this all, all started out. But it did make us stop and ask the question to say, well, can you do this? Can you have a systems approach to. Innovation should you even have this. So it's taken about 15 years and a lot of international debate and conversation, a whole host of experts really questioning ourselves and questioning whether this was the right thing to do. And. What it needed to encompass in order to be successful. So that's a little bit of the background that I've been involved in. A lot of these debates and conversations about what innovation management is and what, uh, systems-based innovation management should be. Um, and having a design background and understanding the design methodology and the approaches, the human centered approaches, uh, design led thinking, how. Can inform an innovation management process. And indeed there is a process within that and making sure that that's built into how organizations see innovation management. Um, and so that for me has been kind of the, the, the key component that I always come back to, to make sure that we have a really robust process within the system.

Simon Hill:

So let's talk about that. Right. And I think it's, it's good to set that scene of the. And I know I've sat in some of these meetings and others that we all know have sat in these meetings over a long period of time. Right. And there's a lot of debate, um, a lot of discussion, a lot of, you know, really, really challenging all of the preconceptions, misconceptions. I think a lot of it, even thought that hadn't necessarily been, been thought yet. Right. As well. Um, or at least we hadn't sort of processed it in that way and suddenly had strong feelings about it. Of, of, you know. Something that, that is in, I think inherently a system needs systematizing is quite complicated. So let's maybe start there. Like what does systematizing innovation actually mean, um, to you when people talk about it?

Victoria Milne:

Well, I think the first thing is to, and I've, I've always described it as, you know, innovation is, it's. Within the standard. We talk about it being the innovations, the things that you produce, but innovating is, is a verb. It's, it's a doing thing and it shouldn't be something that individual that you can point to in an organization. And, you know, uh, if we look back about, uh, 10, 20 years ago, um, if you asked any CEO about innovation, he'd point to, you know, that we have an innovation lab. That's where it happens. It happens in this room with, you know, the, the, the. Foosball table and the fake grass and the beanbags, like that's innovation. If you see those things, those, um, artifacts, that's where innovation takes place. Um, and that's not what it's about. So this is quite a step change from some of the leading thinking around the two thousands that was, was coming out of American, American universities saying that, oh no, innovation should kind of sit alongside the engine of the organization. This is, this is quite a step change from that. We're saying innovation should be systemic. So when we say systematizing, the first part of understanding that is that it is systemic. So just like, you know, the famous story in nasa, you know, if you ask, um, the, the janitor who's who sweeping the floor, what he does, he helps put people on the moon. It's about a systemic approach to innovation where everybody within the organization understands their role and how they can contribute to innovating. It doesn't sit separately, um, in, you know, some hallowed space down the hall where people very rarely get to experience what it is and actually participate and take part in creating innovation for the organization. So, so that's the first aspect. Um, and then the second aspect, so systemic is the first, systematic is the second. And this is about having clear processes and being able to measure and assess your processes and not simply allowing them to happen ad hoc and individually. Um, with. Criteria that aren't necessarily even explicit. Often we find that they're just simply implicit criteria that haven't actually been articulated and aligned to the strategic direction of the organization. So when it comes to systematizing innovation and innovation management, it's about systemic and systematic within this space.

Simon Hill:

I think that, and I like, I like the language framing here. And um, I don't know if you know, but in an earlier, earlier podcast we had Steve Rader on from NASA who told a very similar story, but actually brought it all the way through. Um, the organization, even to the folk who you might think about as, as you know, more obviously contributing to putting people on the moon or whatever, the, the rocket scientists and others, and getting them into the mind space of their job was to bring people back safely as well, right? And so it isn't about you being the subject matter expert and solving all the world's hallowed problems of doing that. It's about using the talents of the world, having a system, having an open approach, an open mindset, and using your strengths and skills. To turn over every rock and follow the process to the, to, to, to the most expansive form that it can be, to know that you did everything to bring those astronauts back safely from a mission Right. As well. And so, I, I agree with you, and it, it, but it, it, it sort of folds from, you know, that sort of anecdotal janitor level all the way through to identity and everything else. It feels like, and maybe it's 'cause you and I are so in it, I don't know if the wider world feels like this, but this topic of systematizing innovation is. It's finally starting to gather some traction. Is there a reason for that, that you, do you agree with me first of all? I mean, probably yes, given the work that you're doing, but outside of maybe the bubble that, that you and I live in, do you feel like that's, that's true in the, the wider innovation world? And if so, why might that be the case?

Victoria Milne:

Think part of, um, part of a change that we're seeing in, in society, um, and. You know, you, you spoke there about subject matter experts, and we've allowed in the past these type of ivory towers of, you know, the kind of master creator, the, the, the, uh, the, it's actually the great man theory. This, this singular, uh, you know, creative, uh, individual who can. Completely come up with wonderful new ideas that are fully formed as, as great concepts and deploy them as solutions, you know, without, without even trying. Um. Realized and we've learned, and the, and in fact, the empirical evidence shows that's not, not true. It's been, uh, you know, uh, disproven that actually it's about the, the creativity and the best ideas. The best results come from diverse groups, happy groups. So mood is one of the most important indicators of, of your likely success, of your innovation. So happy groups of diverse teams. Um, and that means that you can't have these, these ivory towers, these, these, these, um, silos. Um, those don't, those don't work well. And I think social media is having a big role to play and, and the, the kind of generational views that we seeing, um, whether good or bad. Questions need to be asked about expertise because often the expertise doesn't necessarily engage with. What really is happening within, within an environment, within a space. Um, and so a lot of assumptions are made, um, and that might be on a, a great amount of knowledge, but it's not necessarily the relevant and current knowledge. And so what's, what's happening is we're, we're saying the way we used to do things doesn't work for us the way we used to produce innovation. Isn't producing innovation that's, uh, right for our environment. That it isn't innovation. That's right for the majority of, of this, of our society. It might be right for those who happen to hold shares within the organization, but it's, but it's not necessarily to the benefit of all within society. So, so there's a whole lot of questioning that's, that's going on. You know, we can see it in every realm of our lives, but when it comes to innovating for organizations. We're starting to say, how can we better leverage everybody within our organization? How can we better draw from all of the innate knowledge that we have? Um, how can we better create solutions that, that are better sense checked? We talk about fail fast, but it's minimizing uncertainty sooner, um, so that we can produce faster and more successful. Innovations, uh, product growth, market growth, uh, and and improved productivity and efficiency within the organization.

Simon Hill:

And so how do we balance that with, I'm gonna throw a big, a big question at you now around this, 'cause you've got that sort of, that piece of, I guess the, the innovator being, you know, the Steve Jobs figure, the genius, which we all know wasn't, was, you know, wasn't really a, a, a truism and certainly doesn't extrapolate out into, at scale for any, any, in any meaningful way. Even if there are ad hoc geniuses out there. As, should this be a profession then, or does that create the ivory tower? Right. That, that, that we're trying to, to, to, to dispel the myth of, so let's, let's run with that question a bit, right? So we're trying to professionalize it. Should we be right? Should it be a profession? And if so, why?

Victoria Milne:

So that's it. Is it, it's a very big question. Part of the issue that we have. And so, so there's part of the issue is that what's been happening up until now is we've tended to have organizations internally figure things out for themselves. So whether it's. Apple's methodology or IBM's methodology, or Unilever or Procter and Gamble's methodology, each of these organizations have internally figured it out themselves, how they're gonna manage their innovation. And, and I really like using the fast moving consumer goods, um, you know, industry as an example of innovators because of the rate of. What they push out, new variants, new products, uh, probably faster than any other category. Um. Internally, they've, it's it's organizational theory. The organization has been controlling that and generally they've had a bit of a, what we call constructivism. Um, so an approach of learning where they've kind of figured it out, what works for them. And there's lovely narrative about how they've learned this process. And they have their own kind of naming of each of the steps, and it's their specifically owned process. Um, this. But what it does is it means that it then becomes trapped within that story and it becomes quite difficult to be able to compare and. Kind of link and work with other organizations who have their own internal story, who've developed their own language when it comes to, to innovation and how that all works. So suddenly it sits in isolation and it can be very good for that organization, but it can't actually expand beyond that. So it becomes, you know, it's, it's strength becomes its greatest weakness because it cannot. Connect with anything else, and it can sometimes be quite difficult to understand if you're external and you don't understand the language. It sounds like they're speaking in a foreign language because there's so much jargon and terminology that's only known to them, so, so the issue is how can you then balance that with more of a, kind of a bit more structure that's more universal? And it's getting that kind of institutionalism, which is kind of that outside in view, that macro view to say, okay, can we have a, can we even just agree what innovation means? There you go. Like one definition, can we all use the same definition for, for innovation? So. We wanna balance that institutionalism with the organization's own development so that we ha there's the ability for it to move from within the organization externally and work well with others and expand that into open innovation and expand that into, uh, their supply chain innovation and all of these sorts of aspects, which is where you start to really see that that growth, um, of innovation result. Impact. And then we also, there's, there's a bit of a balance that you need to have with a bit of what's called behaviorism. Behaviorism, which is kind of, Pavlov's dog is the best example. Um, where, where you make sure that there is also some structure involved. Because if we allow it to simply be this kind of. This is our story of how we create things and it's very qualitative and there's not enough metric and measurement internally to say, okay, well is our innovation process doing better or worse this year than it did the previous year? You know, are we going to produce better quality innovations? Or are we actually not improving on the quality year, on year of what we're producing through our, through our process, so not actually having kind of mechanisms to manage and assess and quantify then. Means that it, it's difficult to, to improve what I can measure, I can, you know, I can then improve on. So it's these four factors. I mean, I know it sounds quite complicated, but it there, these, these four factors involved. Now, why all of this is so relevant is because if we, if we want to see this practice become formalized. Something where I can take somebody's experience from one organization and understand and situated within another organization, it means that we create, we create a much better flow. Of ideas and innovation, resource and cap capability and capacity, uh, both within organizations but within markets as well. And that's where we're going to start to see the growth and productivity because innovation affects growth and productivity. So why do we need to professionalize innovation management so that we can best balance the internal. Culture, the organization and the external structures of kind of formalizing a practice, as well as making sure that you have the right measurement and assessment. Something that is both quantitative as well as qualitative in the way that it is learned and developed and owned by the individuals who are creating innovations in the organization and to get that right. You do need to have some kind of formalized practice and understand, just as I've shared with you now, understand these elements and be able to work with these elements with a perspective to say, okay, as a systems architect, how do I get this right? And that's a really important job, and that job needs to be certified. That job needs to be done by somebody who has the right skills and competencies and the right. Capabilities learning knowledge to be able to do that effectively for both an organization as well as an ecosystem through to a national level, regional level. And, and at a global level,

Simon Hill:

which is, which is a big ambition. We're, we're kind of at the early stages, which as I started exploring this with, with you and the teams around different parts of the world that are, that are doing it, you know, the. Not many people get involved in building a profession. So maybe we can just talk about that a little. Right. What does it, what does it mean to make innovation a recognized profession? And what are, you know, where are we on that journey and what, you know, is this, is there an an, an analogous profession we can think of that, that maybe can bring that to life a little bit that's been, been formed that in a, in a timeframe that, you know, people can go, oh, I can see how, how, how, that's 'cause it's, it's a sort of sentence, right? We're gonna professionalize innovation. What does, what does it mean?

Victoria Milne:

So, well, good examples are project management, um, as well as quality management. And we saw with both of those as they became recognized professions that they began with, with standards. So when we look at this, we, we expect to see some building blocks. And the first kind of building block is, is a standard, uh, a management system standard that talks about what it is that that practice does within an organization. And it helps us to also get some of those key definitions down. I think having that common language is, is, is the key. Uh, so. A lot of what standards writing is, is actually saying, okay, what do we mean by innovation? And innovation is new and improved generation of value. So it's realizing value. So if it hasn't actually realized any value, it's still research. It's still experimentation, it's still, you know, it's not yet innovation. No, just. So having that shared language, having the standard, and then from there, what you, what we see, um, and what you would like to ex expect to see is the coming together of, uh, those practitioners who are leading this conversation, who are saying, let's start to, to codify what, what good looks like. You know, with, with the standard tells us what we're in the business of. Uh, and now we're saying what does good look like? So somebody going in, an individual going in and, uh, you know, working and delivering on the, the standards. Requirements, you know, what, what should they know? So what is the body of knowledge that they should have? You know, what should they understand about, you know, we've used terms like open innovation, um, and, uh, ecosystems. You know, what should they, what should they understand? What should they understand about systemic? Systematic. You know, in, in this process. So the body of knowledge and coming together and determining what that is, having a very clear idea of, you know, what those, the job levels are. So what is an, an assistant, you know, uh, innovation executive. What's an innovation manager's role? Uh, when we start to talk about, you know, a VP of innovation, what do we expect? You know, and all the way up as we go, a Chief Innovation officer, what, what would we expect, uh, their portfolio to look like? So understanding the job roles, but then having a. A house, an institution, a place where, um, those who are new to the practice can come in and learn from others. A place where we can house our collective knowledge, create our own library of case studies of. Of all of the, the collective experience and ways to share and learn, and then to recognize our, the, the level of proficiency that people have. So, you know, uh, have you got your practitioners certificates? You know, have you got a, a management, uh. Uh, certificate all the way up to eventually having chartered status. Um, and so being able to get all of those building blocks in place, that's how we go about establishing a profession and our job, our very important job. Um, you know. That we're doing right now is making sure that we get that balance right between that institutionalism and that organizational theory between constructivism and behaviorism. It's a real, it's like standing on a balance, balance ball. You know? You've gotta get that just right, because if we go too far one way, then we're a big box ticking exercise and everybody becomes automatons, and the only kind of innovation we'll see. Is incremental. It'll be really boring. Yeah. You know, it'll be safe stuff. Um, and a we'll see a lot of frustration. Yeah. You know, if we, if we, uh, too much to the other side, we'll be back where we, where we were before, where nobody can talk the same language. We've all been in those situations where you've got. You know, um, a group of, uh, startups on one side of the room and a group of corporates on the other, and they, they, they even dress completely differently and they, they can't even have a conversation, you know, in a social environment, let alone in the work environment because there's, there's nothing that they have. Of consistency when it comes to their language and their, their processes and their, their systems, you know, so it's making sure that we, we balance all of that, making sure that we don't err on one side or the other too much as we begin to professionalize innovation management, but have all of those kit of parts, um, like we've seen with quality management. And

Simon Hill:

yeah, I think, I think it's an interesting analogy as well. And I, one of the data points that was discussed. Um, in one of our meetings was, and that's not a data point that perhaps many will know, is it typically has taken about 15 years to go from that point of early concepts of a profession to it being a profession like quality management took about 15 years, project management took about 15 years. So are we 15 years out or 14 maybe from this being a profession, do you think?

Victoria Milne:

Um. No, I think that we're moving a lot faster, and that's to do with, um, AI as well as, uh, using social media. The ability to bring people together now is, is significantly faster than it was, you know, 50 or 60 years ago. Um, and getting feedback and being able to move a lot faster with these, with these, um, with these developments. So. I don't think it's gonna take us that long. We also have a bit of a catch up to do in the uk so we see that some of the markets are, are a little bit further ahead, um, of us as far as setting up associations and things like that. So, so there is a little bit of a, a race, if I can say that. I think it's quite good to have a bit of a, a bit of, um, pressure because that gets us to, you know, to really focus on, on what we need to do. Um, also. Looking across the world at the appetite for this professionalization. Uh, you know, some developed markets might be a little bit slower to take this up, but, um, when, you know, I've recently been in, in southern Africa and, and in places like that where. When we talk about this, there is such interest and there's such appetite for it. It's really very exciting to see that this is, this isn't just, you know, happening here with, with our little group of, of experts who are, you know, who, you know, in our own little kind of echo chamber. This is a, this is global and there's a global appetite for this and it's, it is really an exciting time to be part of what's happening. It's the uptake on the standard as well. That's usually a really good indicator of how there is a demand and, and need, but at the rate of change. And so seeing, um, organizations like the NHS already training and beginning to apply 56,001, um, when it literally was published in September of last year is phenomenal. I don't think there's any been uptake like that. Of any of the major, um, management system standards. So one of the largest organizations in the world beginning to, to look at implementing 56,001 is, is a huge

Simon Hill:

agreed, huge. Agreed. Kind of our agreed. And I do think that that global perspective is, is kind of fascinating actually. And the bits of the world that are jumping on this, um, yeah, it'll be interesting to watch that trajectory over the next little while as well. You've mentioned. 56,001. And, and, and you know, listeners may not be super familiar with this. I suspect also there's a degree of, uh, I don't know, let's call it cynicism. Maybe an eyebrow, an eyebrow raised or something around the idea of, uh, ISO standard for innovation. Like, you know, so let's talk about that. Like what, what are these standards? Can you just introduce the concepts, um, for people and, you know, and then maybe we'll get into. Why we should reserve some cynicism. I mean, we've spoken a little bit, a bit, a little bit about it in this dialogue already, but you know, once you get into the weeds of a standards document and you know, they're quite, you know, they're quite, they're quite long. They're good, but they're quite long documents, right? Like, how do we, how do we make sure this doesn't become that sort of box ticking, reduced to compliance exercise that some of these ISO standards are?

Victoria Milne:

Yeah. Yeah. And that's really, that's, you know, that's so important that it doesn't go that box ticking route that we, you know, that balance ball, our balance ball, that we, that we fall over, um, into that kind of, you know, institutional, you know, behaviorism. It would, that would be. That would be a disaster. So the 56,000, the suite. Um, so it's a whole, it's a little bit like walking into your favorite, uh, bookshop and going into the management section and then finding the shelf that's on innovation management. And there's all the books that are, that are there that have been published. Um, and uh, how ISO works is we have. They're, they're kind of more like reports, um, but we have those that are requirements. So you have to meet these requirements and then you can get the certificate, and that's always the thousand and one. And so that's the requirement standard. But below that. You'll find 56,002, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. I think we're about 13, 14, and 15. We are writing at the moment. So you'll find a whole lot of other, uh, kind of. Management self-help books around, uh, partnerships around innovation management for ip. So how to handle your IP when it comes to innovation, how to, how to work with partners, how to best assess your system, how to best measure your system, all of these individual guidances so you don't get certified against them, but. What it does is it gives you the best advice, and when I say it's the best advice, it is literally, like I say, about four years worth of, uh, usually anywhere between, you know, um, 80. To a hundred experts who are on our committee working on that particular report, uh, you know, developing it, putting in best practice, refining it, refining it, refining it. So it really is best practice advice that you could possibly find, um, on how to best. Assess or measure whatever aspect of innovation management that you're particularly interested in, in one of those guidances. And the first number, 56,000, that's our little dictionary. So that's gonna have all of these words like what is it, does innovation mean? What is innovation management? What is, uh, an innovation management system? And it describes what each one of those things are. And so. What, what that's really all about is actually starting to say, as an innovation manager, you're not the manager of that particular piece of innovation. As it moves through the organization from the Post-it notes all the way through, you know, to the product sitting on the shelf or the service that it becomes, or whatever it might be, that you are actually responsible for the management of the system. That happens to be innovation. And understanding kind of that role. And that's really what the standards kind of as, as an innovation management system standard. The whole suite really teaches you, it teaches you to kind of step back and say, well, I'm actually, maybe rather than calling me the innovation management, call me the, the, the innovation systems architect. Because effectively that's my job to be able to, to create this, um, when I'm, when I'm implementing the standards and, and putting them in place. So 56,001 is really, uh, kind of the, the requirements so that you can get the certification, but for the, for the person doing the job in your organization, it is the, the, the kind of guidebook, the, the guard rails, the processes to be able to implement it. To make sure it's not a box ticking exercise to make sure we don't go over on our balance pool. We've put in eight principles and the eight principles and are fundamental to how we've written. We've written the standards, so as a committee we agreed the principles first. That was the hardest part for us in the 15 years that we've been working, is actually deciding on the eight principles. And these are all about future focused leaders. Leaders who are brave and courageous, who actually support innovation. You know, it's about having strategic alignment so that your innovation aligns to, to the strategy of the organization. It's about generating value. If your innovation is not generating value, you are not. Doing innovation. It's, it, it's about having the right kind of culture. It's about having an adaptable structures so that you are agile and, and flexible in how you structure your teams so that you can actually get this innovation to market. You know, it's all, all of these aspects that make make it up. And of course, that's systems approach and that's the magic source. That helps you. In fact, I would, I would actually say that that helps you define the center of our balance goal are the eight principles. So, so you've got this whole wonderful structure, frameworks, all of that within 56,001. That's your requirement standard, but. Fundamental to it, right in the center sits the eight principles. And that will help you always as your systems architect to balance to say, have I got this right? Am I giving enough creative freedom where I need to, um, you know, have, have we got our process right so that, you know, we're not allowing things to run too long before we decide whether, um, it needs to be, maybe even be stopped as a piece of innovation to know when to say no. You know, all of those sorts of aspects you can then manage from that center point.

Simon Hill:

Yeah, I like that analogy. I just came back from a week's vacation and one of the, there was a circus act one night where the person wasn't on one balance board. They were on about 12 different things on top of this thing. Balancing. I feel like that's what we're doing sometimes. Um, but you know, they made it so we can make it, we can make it as well as we kind of come towards. The, the end of this, hopefully there's people sitting thinking, oh, this sounds, this sounds great. You know how you and I do like the idea of a systems architect for this, right? Like, I have some philosophical challenges with the role of a chief innovation officer.'cause it's not really a chief role in my opinion. Um, even if it is, it's not in organizations, but the people getting stuck in and making this, you know, embedded and integrated and systematized as you've, as you've spoken to. Is the role, I think, right? From my, from my perspective. But what if people wanna, wanna find out more, or like, what advice would you give to, to people that are going, this sounds, this sounds great. How can I, you know, what is the level of effort to take home? Like, can I find out more? Like, what does it, let's make it a bit bit real for people. What it, what it might look like.

Victoria Milne:

So, um, one of the things we did do is, is we made 56,001 as short as possible. Um, and it, this is one of those things where I really recommend that you get the standard that, that you buy the standard. Um, and, and give it a read because it's one of those things, uh, you know, it's a lot of people think, oh, this is gonna be onerous, this is gonna be really heavy, but. We've kept it super simple. Um, we've designed it so that it can apply to a startup, a social enterprise, to anybody. Um, and you know, going back and reading it afresh myself, I'm like this. You literally can read it in within an hour. You can page through the whole thing and get, get a lot of value just in doing that. Um, so I recommend that you do that. There's lots online about it. Um, you can also pick up 56,002, which is kind of a guidance for the whole of 56,001. So if you want a little bit more meat on the bones, that's, that's. Really a good one to, to kind of understand in a little bit more detail what we're really talking about with everything, but, you know, go to the source. Um, if, if I'm honest, just, just go to the source because it's not that complicated. Um, and it's a really simple framework, you know, that covers off leadership planning, um, your kind of resourcing your context and then your process. And that's pretty much it. Um, along with those eight principles, you know, you can very quickly start to say. Well, do we have these, do we have the right kind of leadership? Do we have the right kind of culture? Do I have a systems approach to my innovation management? Oh, no, I hadn't, we haven't actually thought about it like that before. Um, you know, and you can immediately start to see where there are opportunities for, for yourselves, your, your own organization where you can start to start to make improvements. Um, and that's the best place to start, really.

Simon Hill:

No, I, I, I agree. I think there is still a. Uh, listen and receive or read and receive challenge in this. Back to that very sort of, you know, sort of pejorative example of what does innovation mean. You can read the words on that a thousand times. Yeah. And go, yeah, I get it. And then one day wake up on day thousand one and go, oh, I get it. Right. It's like, it's, there's a, there's a moment in that journey and that's true against every little bit of that, of that learning in that. It's not really, I think what you are receiving sometimes, 'cause you've kind of got this institutional perspective that you're coming from, from a business side, you've got preconceived ideas that are very deeply baked inside the things that we've been taught that need to be relearned and reconsidered, I think. And so I think the people that have done the work in this room are actually true experts in this because they've come to understand. I think, but we still got work to do to make sure that that's translated and received in the right way. Um, and that even though the document's been made quite simple, I think taking it and actually doing it properly. Does require, and that's back to my, you know, previous question of should this be a profession? I, I think it absolutely has to be for those reasons, right? Um, I think it's embedded in the organization and, and, and probably across more people than some professions might need to be as well. Um, so we've gotta make it accessible. And maybe that leads into my final question is like, aside from the professionalization of the standard, and we've got, you mentioned earlier, like, AI may be helping to us accelerate this. Like what do you think is next for the field of. Of innovation and what gives you hope and excitement about the future of this rather than maybe some of the nervousness and fear? Um, particularly with ai.

Victoria Milne:

Oh, AI is a, is a fabulous tool and good innovation is about knowing how to ask the right questions, and that's the job for us as the humans. To, to start to, to become better at. And that's, for me, is really interesting because there's a behavior change that has to happen with us. Uh, you know, that we, we kind of go, well, what, how is AI gonna develop? I'm more interested in how we are gonna develop because. Our current workforce have been told not to ask questions, have been told, you know, you know, kind of do your job. Don't, you know, don't, don't think outside the box. Get, be really efficient. Stick within your lane. Um, and you know, and you'll, you'll be fine. You'll, you know, you'll be able to bring home a paycheck and that's, that's what's being asked of you. And kind of, and then we also develop these areas of expertise and nobody questions that. But AI is fantastic because you can now question everything and get information about that. Get, get. I often say that AI is, is more, um, you know, ao um, it's aggregated opinion as opposed to artificial intelligence, but as an aggregated opinion that can help to inform your question and. Innovating is all about learning. It's all about asking questions and asking better and better questions and, and managing those uncertainties, getting those answers down. So, so for me it's a, there's a, it's a huge enabler of the behavior change that we need to take basically 30 years of staff. Through, because we need people to go from being, being very much about being efficient and knowledgeable and expert, to being comfortable with ambiguity, to being able to look at very disparate data, to be able to ask, um, you know, kind of difficult questions. Uh, don't have assumptions, challenge assumptions, all of these things. And the, in the, in 56,001, we start with leadership. Leadership first, and then the next thing is behavior change. It's leadership and behavior change. And then, and your culture and communication, you know that. So what's really exciting is as we professionalize this, as we start to take innovation seriously as a, as a leader of optimization within an organization's capabilities, okay. And that's really what's happening with professionalization and with the standard, that's where we're putting it. When you start to understand that, that's, that's when we start to see the right kind of leadership, the right kind of leadership thinking. And that's where we, we can then affect that behavior change along with ai and we can start to do incredible things because we, we have a, a huge amount of knowledge that we can draw from these disparate data sets that we never had before, uh, to, to make these changes. So, so, no, I'm, I'm very excited about what. More structure is going to help to bring along with this huge proliferation of data that we have through the likes of ai. And the third piece to structure the standards, ai, this proliferation of of data. And then we've got the behavior change, the right leadership. The ability to, to give people back their right to creativity, their right to, to freedom of thought, their right to exploration and experimentation because everybody. Deserves to have that right. And so many of us lost that through our education, through, you know, the way that we expect people to behave through social norming, through that constructivism. We, you know, we've said, no, no, you can't do that socially. It's unacceptable for you to do that. We are now, we can now actually start to, to give people back their, their, their freedom of creativity, which, uh, I think is very important. But I've, I've covered so much. I hope that, uh, you've

Simon Hill:

covered a lot and I feel like I had more questions, but that was such a nice way to end that. Maybe that's where we should end. Um, this, this, this episode. Just quickly for listeners who want to know more about you and your work at Verity Merits and, and the standards and stuff, maybe just, just talk a little bit about the work that you're doing there and, and how people can find you.

Victoria Milne:

Yes. So, um, so we're responsible for, uh, training around the standards and helping to, IM embed them looking at the kind of competencies that you need within your organization and helping with that kind of behavior change. So we're, we support organizations, like I mentioned, um, the NHS. Um, in the training and implementation of, uh, of the standard. Um, and that's come from a background of, of, uh, innovation management, uh, consulting for the last, uh, eight or nine years. Uh, but we're also spreading the good word. So if you wanna know more, uh, you know, if you wanna be part of the conversation around how we start to professionalize innovation management within the uk, uh, you know, how we create this collective body of knowledge. You know, how we move all of these. These parts forward and how, you know, if you've, if you've got excited about this balance ball, um, and kind of how to get this right and, and starting to see, you know, what this really looks like and the architecture and the system and, you know, kind of, you've, you've, you've taken the, what's it, the red pill and you can see the matrix, uh, and you wanna come and play with us then, then get in touch.

Simon Hill:

Yeah, absolutely. And Victoria, thank you. This is, it has been a really good conversation and I know. That, you know, you've got such a depth of body of knowledge yourself on this now and been sat in so many meetings. We could talk for days on it, but I think this has been a good, grounded conversation. I've actually learned a few things through this that I hadn't necessarily processed in many of the conversations as well. Um, and I think it's a great opportunity and a good call to action to folk that are. Want to seize the opportunity to be right at the front, the cold face of building this profession out. Right? That doesn't happen very often. And so yeah, if you are, if you're interested, then uh, get in touch with Victoria. Victoria. Thank you very, very much for this. Um, as always, everybody, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to give us feedback to let us know and hit subscribe, share with others and, and leave us a review, and we'll be back very soon with more conversations on how to unlock total innovation. Thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Simon Hill

Host