Here is my default motto for time spent on different kinds of work: 80% on complex and 20% on disruptive.
The complex space involves continuous innovation, while the disruptive space is focused on bleeding-edge invention.
80-90% on the complex:
- Goal is more clear
- Problems are complex
- Iterative innovation on solutions
- Context matters for decisions
- Pivot less often
- Things are productised & scaled
- It may be considered “boring”
10-20% on the disruptive:
- Goal and problem is less clear
- Understanding potential
- Discover goals, problems & products
- Solutions can be fringe and inventive
- Pivot often
- Critical thinking matters even more
- Identify practical opportunities
- Understand limitations
- MAY generate something actionable
- Higher chance of failure
0% on the simple:
- Low complexity
- Well-understood
- Best practice
- Repeatable without context
- Run the playbook
- Can be automated
- Soul-crushing (to me, at least)
The percentages are a personal preference shaped by context and experience. Proportions vary for different people and organisations; nevertheless, the nature of problems changes in each space.
An example might help explain the difference. Integrating a new framework to solve a complex problem could be considered an innovation - it is practical and implementable. Contrast this with cutting-edge research in the latest AI techniques - this is disruptive, and the challenge is to identify scalable products with practical solutions. This is experimental to the extreme.
Some organisations limit innovation and/or disruption to only a fraction of the time (or remove the time altogether). Organisations could suffer consequences if their competitors do the opposite and reap the rewards.
What about the opposite - 80% spent in the disruptive space, with nothing being productised and scaled? Initially, this may be necessary to pivot fast and stay ahead. Eventually, though, a product needs to be defined, built and scaled. Constraints exist for early-stage products - whether you want them or not! It’s futile to try to scale every early-stage opportunity under constant change - data, critical thinking and strategy are required to make the right bets to progress toward scalability.
Is it an anti-pattern to have dedicated roles or teams for disruption or innovation - would everyone else get bored and resentful quickly? Those best placed to evaluate innovations are closest to the execution and ops - their buy-in is critical. However, it does require a shift in mindset towards a more disruptive way of thinking.
I am keen to know how you make this work in your teams and organisations.