Are you an innovator or a follower? There is no right or wrong answer. Just know which you are. Otherwise, you are getting in the way. Image via Unsplash

Everyone likes to consider themselves innovators, or at least believe that innovation is happening in their domain. But innovation management is a process that requires leaders to commit deeply and believe that the risk is worth the reward.

For many business leaders, regardless of the industry, it can be a struggle to embrace creativity and innovation and to commit the needed resources of time, funding, and staff to develop new methods of doing business. For many, it is a conflict to invest when there is not a clear, immediate, or guaranteed financial return on investment. When it comes to innovation, the biggest return on investment can be the learnings and the mindset shift, not just the financial gains.

Leaders need to ask themselves a couple of questions:

“Do I want to be an innovator or a follower?” There is no right answer as both leaders and followers are needed. But one thing to keep in mind is that innovation without failure is impossible.

Thus, the next question emerges: “Which do I value more, taking reasonable risks and learning or being a mainstream adopter?” And again, there is no right answer.

Seth Godin, author and former dot com executive, once said, “No organization ever created an innovation. People innovate, not companies.”

With that in mind, for those who genuinely want to be leaders of innovation, there are certain “must-haves” for any process. The most important “must-haves” are remembering that internal culture impacts success and support from the top down is absolutely integral.

Real innovation moves the organization forward strategically. 

Designate ownership and accountability to measure progress. These measurements will often look quite different from other success metrics, are often more opaque and are even not immediately financial. These non-financial metrics sometimes make team members feel uncomfortable, and that is okay. Ultimately everyone involved in this process needs to be willing to hear truth and be committed to creating a culture that drives creativity.

Innovation has a clear alignment with organizational business strategy. 

Leadership and designated team members need defined problems to solve that align with the stated business strategies. There is no point innovating a widget or process that does not move the organization forward.

Innovation requires a defined process and funding. 

Leadership should begin by carving out one full year of budget solely dedicated to innovation and trying new things. These dedicated resources include funding, full-time employees, and support from a consultant, such as EPIcenter, to challenge leaders and drive the process. There must be buy-in by the team members with leaders committed to ongoing sightlines of the process.

The right team members need to be at the table.

The right people need to be the ones to make decisions, evaluate innovations and de-risk both the technology and the business models to make things happen. The team should include individuals who are adaptive and tenured, new and nimble, and a mix of subject matter expertise and enthusiasm.

Innovation success requires the right mindset.

Both the leadership and innovation team must have a mantra of “how can we” rather than “we can’t” or “we’ve never done it that way before” or “it failed before.” There must be a will and desire to work, innovate, fail, resolve, and execute -- or at least learn.

Sometimes innovative solutions emerge by happenstance during the process without a known or stated problem. With proper training and a curious mindset anything is possible.

With these requirements in mind, let’s go back to the initial questions asked of business leaders, but in reverse order this time:

“What do you value more, taking reasonable risks and learning while meeting strategic goals or pure financial gain?”

“Are you okay with failure, adjustments and trying again?”

“Are you an innovator or a follower?”

Again, there is no right or wrong answer. Just know which you are. Otherwise, you are getting in the way.

------

Liz Thompson serves as the chief of advisory services at EPIcenter, a Texas-based nonprofit organization with a think tank, incubator, and accelerator focused on energy innovation and thought for the global future.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston researcher builds radar to make self-driving cars safer

eyes on the road

A Rice University researcher is giving autonomous vehicles an “extra set of eyes.”

Current autonomous vehicles (AVs) can have an incomplete view of their surroundings, and challenges like pedestrian movement, low-light conditions and adverse weather only compound these visibility limitations.

Kun Woo Cho, a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rice professor of electrical and computer engineering Ashutosh Sabharwal, has developed EyeDAR to help address such issues and enhance the vehicles’ sensing accuracy. Her research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

The EyeDAR is an orange-sized, low-power, millimeter-wave radar that could be placed at streetlights and intersections. Its design was inspired by that of the human eye. Researchers envision that the low-cost sensors could help ensure that AVs always pick up on emergent obstacles, even when the vehicles are not within proper range for their onboard sensors and when visibility is limited.

“Current automotive sensor systems like cameras and lidar struggle with poor visibility such as you would encounter due to rain or fog or in low-lighting conditions,” Cho said in a news release. “Radar, on the other hand, operates reliably in all weather and lighting conditions and can even see through obstacles.”

Signals from a typical radar system scatter when they encounter an obstacle. Some of the signal is reflected back to the source, but most of it is often lost. In the case of AVs, this means that "pedestrians emerging from behind large vehicles, cars creeping forward at intersections or cyclists approaching at odd angles can easily go unnoticed," according to Rice.

EyeDAR, however, works to capture lost radar reflections, determine their direction and report them back to the AV in a sequence of 0s and 1s.

“Like blinking Morse code,” Cho added. “EyeDAR is a talking sensor⎯it is a first instance of integrating radar sensing and communication functionality in a single design.”

After testing, EyeDAR was able to resolve target directions 200 times faster than conventional radar designs.

While EyeDAR currently targets risks associated with AVs, particularly in high-traffic urban areas, researchers also believe the technology behind it could complement artificial intelligence efforts and be integrated into robots, drones and wearable platforms.

“EyeDAR is an example of what I like to call ‘analog computing,’” Cho added in the release. “Over the past two decades, people have been focusing on the digital and software side of computation, and the analog, hardware side has been lagging behind. I want to explore this overlooked analog design space.”

12 winners named at CERAWeek clean tech pitch competition in Houston

top teams

Twelve teams from around the country, including several from Houston, took home top honors at this year's Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition at CERAWeek.

The fast-paced event, held March 25, put on by Rice Alliance, Houston Energy Transition Initiative and TEX-E, invited 36 industry startups and five Texas-based student teams focused on driving efficiency and advancements in the energy transition to present 3.5-minute pitches before investors and industry partners during CERAWeek's Agora program.

The competition is a qualifying event for the Startup World Cup, where teams compete for a $1 million investment prize.

PolyJoule won in the Track C competition and was named the overall winner of the pitch event. The Boston-based company will go on to compete in the Startup World Cup held this fall in San Francisco.

PolyJoule was spun out of MIT and is developing conductive polymer battery technology for energy storage.

Rice University's Resonant Thermal Systems won the second-place prize and $15,000 in the student track, known as TEX-E. The team's STREED solution converts high-salinity water into fresh water while recovering valuable minerals.

Teams from the University of Texas won first and second place in the TEX-E competition, bringing home $25,000 and $10,000, respectively. The student winners were:

Companies that pitched in the three industry tracts competed for non-monetary awards. Here are the companies named "most-promising" by the judges:

Track A | Industrial Efficiency & Decarbonization

Track B | Advanced Manufacturing, Materials, & Other Advanced Technologies

  • First: Licube, based in Houston
  • Second: ZettaJoule, based in Houston and Maryland
  • Third: Oleo

Track C | Innovations for Traditional Energy, Electricity, & the Grid

The teams at this year's Energy Venture Day have collectively raised $707 million in funding, according to Rice. They represent six countries and 12 states. See the full list of companies and investor groups that participated here.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.