One of the key objectives of Roadidea is to address the innovation process itself. The processes found to be effective in other domains are applied to create, refine and enhance the Ideas generated in the two Innovation Seminars, and these processes themselves require appraisal and improvement throughout RoadIdea, as well as the development of the emergent demonstrations and idea specifications themselves.
This section reviews the process and press from the Prague (First innovation Seminar) meeting in May 2008 from this point of view.
The group involved was large, over 40 people, and many had not previously met each other. This ensured that a significant amount of time would be spent in developing such relationships and determining the kinds of backgrounds, skills and experience that each brought to the meeting. The process for the working seminar was structured to ensure that a high level of interaction and changes of pace and context were provided for. However the observed effect was that the narrowing of the filters on the ideas initially expressed was inhibited by the lack of prior knowledge of the individuals of each other.
The formal process catered well for pre-reading and familiarisation of the way that the work would be done, and these process aspects worked well both before and during the meeting. The context in terms of people and their varied experience and technical, cultural and linguistic backgrounds proved not to be sufficient to allow the best results to be secured from the meeting. This led on to inhibit full commitment and group formation to pursue the propositions that emerged, although the process did run through with the desired outcomes in terms of a set of Ideas and champions to develop them.
Many of the informal meetings that took place over the two days showed that there was real energy and interest which was yet to be fully engaged - and that continuing communications would be needed to get continuing and growing momentum.
The Dissemination Plan's Internal Dissemination addressed this in a number of ways, and facilities were tested and put in place. These included one-to-one use of Skype, successful meetings led by DLR using Adobe Communicator, and a series of WIKIs on the RoadIdea website.
The usage of these tools (and the others ready in the wings to build on the links that emerged if they were taken up) was very small, and as a result the momentum was not maintained as it might have been be on the Ideas themselves.
The general culture that emerges in groups affects communications strongly, just as enhanced communication and familiarity provides energy to feed such group processes. In the case of the RoadIdea participants, the TCC meetings provided this stimulus for those involved, and one to one Skype discussions addressed the mechanisms and what needed to be done - but only in a star network (one-to-one) of concerned or interested parties to the TCC Chair.
The Delft meeting in October 2008 provided a second observation point for the people reactions to the innovation process development. The research method of participant observations and feedback is a social science approach usually described as Action Research, and can be very productive as long as the constraints are recognised.
The major process observations were that the demonstrations were grasped as tangible and workable - and the innovation process itself was not seriously discussed or raised by the participants as a result.
The interpersonal links were visibly strengthened by the two day meeting, and common interests and frequent surprises as to the skills and experiences available from various team members were soon apparent, and would clearly enhance project performance.
The emphasis on the demonstrations was clearly a matter of comfort and familiar ground for the participants, and task oriented interchanges were readily progressed.
Again, the Innovation Process itself seemed to be somewhat disconnected from the thrust of the achievable and it might be considered that this was a likely outcome of the weak links and weak ties formed at the first meeting, where they had not been reinforced in the interim.
The uncertainty as to the backgrounds of the various participants at Prague had appeared to inhibit contributions, and in retrospect this appears to be a key observation on the innovation process. The tension between the innovations process being used (not entirely familiar to many there) and the greater confidence of those who had pre-existing disciplinary or locational ties had clearly had a channelling and constraining effect.
The process facilitators had highly effectively secured a number of 'way-out' Ideas and brought them in to the debates- but there was evident reluctance in securing a broader take-up of advocates of these ideas for the second round work on them.
Deductions that may be drawn are that an initial process of expertise exposition in smaller groups might perhaps have sped up the emergence of affiliation and professional confidence. Had that been secured to a greater extent - by whatever means - the subsequent distance communication media (WIKI, telephone, email, Video conferencing, Skype).
The careful assertion that the innovation processes being followed were one of the project outputs, and so could have been placed on the agenda as an Idea (in that sense) might have - and might still - secure input at this meta-level from the participants and observers. Structured contact between the Innovation Leader and the advisory committee members in attendance at Prague would elicit some information on this aspect.
These reflections on the Prague initial Innovation Meeting suggest that progress has been made on all fronts, including assessment of the innovation process itself, but that the design, participation and method of operation of the Second innovation Meeting will need to be crafted to ensure that:
- The process itself is given space for assessment and adjustment prior to the meeting, as is provided for in the work plan, and structured observations made at the Meeting
- While the current set of Ideas will lead to one or more demonstrations, it will need to be made clear that fresh Ideas (incremental or radical) at the Second meeting are perfectly valid outputs from the RoadIdea innovation process
- To draw on the large pool of experience and expertise in the team as a whole, Ideas should exchanged between current advocate leaders, and indeed fresh advocates, as part of the work towards the second innovation meeting
- The data fusion aspects, which are more readily handled in terms of demonstrations and are the complementary aspect of the Ideas, need not only address how the diverse data resources identified fit in best with specific Ideas, but also to recognise that the process of undertaking and securing gains from the fusion processes are as important as the actual results of the fusion tests.
- While there are numerous overlapping FP7 projects under way, the innovation process itself is a major and unique objective of RoadIdea, so we need to bring this out and examine and report on it as a more visible formal task
Dr Marcus Wigan