Piloting Innovative Idea Capture/Management Tools

at NASA Langley Research Center:

Lessons Learned

Lowering barriers to Innovation. Putting ideas into action.

Martin WaszakStrategic Relationships Office

NASA Langley Research Center

Presented at NASA PM Challenge • 22-23 February 2012

2

Outline

The Innovation Challenge

Toward an Innovation Culture

Fostering Innovation through Processes/Tools

Lessons Learned

Epilogue

3

What’s the National Challenge?

Strategy for American Innovation

Despite American economy’s historic strength, our economic growth has rested for too long on an unstable foundation. Explosive growth in one sector of the economy has provided a short-term boost while masking long-term weaknesses. While our economy remains the most dynamic, innovative, and resilient in the world, we cannot rest on our laurels while other countries catch up. We must redouble our efforts to give our world-leading innovators every chance to succeed.

“Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity”Michael Porter (Harvard Business School)

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.”Steve Jobs (CEO, Apple Computer)

“We need you excitement, your dedication, and your innovation. With your help, NASA will continue to be a springboard for technological breakthroughs.”Charles Bolden (NASA Administrator)

4

What’s the National Challenge? Technology is accelerating at an increasing rate

Increasingly R&D is being done in the private sector and outside the U.S.

5

What’s NASA’s Challenge?

The Best Places to Work – Federal Government Survey

Employees rank NASA as most innovative agency

– Government Executive, August 9, 2011

”… you have a workforce that is individually motivated to be creative, but not organizationally supported to achieve that”

– Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service.”

NRC Report Finds NASA has “Depleted” Technology Base

NASA's technology base is 'largely depleted' and the agency hasn't been producing the breakthroughs needed to achieve new goals.

. . . “ambiguity" in space goals "has undermined innovation at NASA and hurt its ability to develop new technology

6

What’s the Langley Challenge?

Balancing Research & Development

Balancing Aeronautics, Science & Space

Exploration

Balancing directed &competitively sourced work

Coping with pressure to ‘do more with less’

Balance meeting near term commitments and exploiting/creating

future opportunities.

7

Innovation: A Simple Concept People . . .

in response to a challenge . . .

creating valued solutions.

Dr. Richard Antcliff,

Chief TechnologistLangley Research Center

Click for link to “Innovation Definition” video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TnGMh8erg

8

Where We’ve Been

Research and Benchmarking*

Fact Finding Innovation Zone Workshop – June 2010 Langley Organizational Innovation Plans – Sept 2010 Initiative Dialogues w/ Orgs – Fall 2010, Winter 2011 Network Design Workshop – April 2011 Framework Design Review – July 2011

* Note: Limited information on “NASA-like” environments to benchmark

9

Toward an Innovation Strategy Align innovation investments with future opportunities

and emerging technologies

Revolutionary Technical Challenges

Space Technology Grand Challenges

Stimulate idea generation

Raise Awareness of the Innovation Imperative

Publicize Benefits on Contributing Ideas

Lower Barriers to Participation

Foster culture of creativity and innovation

Encourage Collaboration

Prompt Action (avoid the black hole)

Actionable Feedback (help people to change)

10

Enablers/Debilitators of Innovation

Key Enablers Relevant Challenges Access to Information Collaboration Diversity of

Perspectives Tolerance for Ambiguity Tolerance for Informed

Risk Patience Allowance for Failure

Key Debilitators Focus on ROI Focus on Efficiency Seek Stability/Certainty Eliminating Risk Fear of Failure Reliance on Experts Discipline Focus

11

Characteristics of Langley’s “Research” Culture

Individual incentives

(limits collaboration)

Proposal focus

(limits diversity of perspectives)

Technology Push vs Needs Pull

(limits relevance)

Technology vs Systems focus

(limits relevance)

Experts Rule vs Beginners Mind

(incremental bias)

Mature workforce in a mature industry

(incremental bias)

Risk averse, fear of failure

(limited tolerance for untested ideas)

Black hole of ideas/proposals

(raises cynicism)

Lack of meaningful feedback

(limits future success)

Need to encourage behaviors to overcome organizational inertia.

12

Innovation Process – The “Pipeline”All innovations must be supported through each stage of the pipeline.

Increase the number and diversity of ideas aimed at addressing opportunities & challenges. Help move them along the process of innovation toward measurable outcomes.

13

Innovation Fund Pilot Project Create a new mechanism for soliciting and managing IRAD projects

Target: New OCT Center Innovation Fund

Goals Innovation from Everyone and Everywhere Systems Level Solutions Relevance to Center and Agency Needs New Collaborations Evidence of Innovation-enabling behaviors

Success Measures Level of participation (users, contributors, votes, etc.) Number of submissions (ideas, comments, votes) Number of collaborations Quality of submissions

Ability to adapt innovation management tool(s) to Langley’s process/workflow

14

Basic Process Flow

15

Issues and Concerns

Prior ad hoc approaches have had limited success (InnovaThon, NASA Challenges) Low participation Lack of visible follow-up

Participation is critical Awareness Relevance Priority

Credibility is critical Commitment Decisiveness Action

UsersAwareness R

ContributorsRelevance R

Ideas CommentsR

R

Selections

R

Closed to Criticism

Too Busy

Nothing will

Happen

Waste of Time

It’s my idea

Info Overload

Too Busy

It’s not Important

16

Pilot Projects - Becoming a Smart Buyer

Learn from the best Suck their brains Steal their best stuff

Gain experience Understand trades-offs Understand the costs

Get useful results while learning CIF Ideas/Proposals C&I Ideas/Proposals Others?

Measure results and outcomes What works & what doesn’t Build credibility

Langley Innovation Opportunities Pilot

Timeline• Aug/Sept 2010: Planning

• Oct. 21 – Nov. 22: Topics Open

• Nov – Jan 2011: Assess results

Topics

Langley Creativity and Innovation

• Revolutionary technology (up to $20K)

Center Innovation Fund

• Space Technology Innovations (up to $200K)

• Center-Wide Innovations ($2-10K)

Future Opportunities

C&I (up to $20K)

Audience• All Langley Center employees and

contractors17

18

Process Overview and Roles

Implementation Team

19

Challenges – Targeting Strategic Opportunities

Space Technology Innovations

Systems Level Approaches for advanced innovative, high-risk, low TRL (1-2) concepts and technologies that address the Space Technology Grand Challenges

Disciplinary Approaches for advanced innovative, high-risk, low TRL (1-2) concepts and technologies that address the Space Technology Grand Challenges

Center-Wide Innovations

Innovative ideas and approaches for high payoff investments to address a wide variety of challenges and opportunities across the center, agency, and nation (little or no funding)

Examples – center operations, center processes, education and public outreach, workforce and career development, facilities, business development, emerging technologies, new products and services

Creativity & Innovation

Center Director’s discretionary funds focusing on emerging technological trends

Future Challenges - Problems, challenges, opportunities that should be considered in the future

20

Langley Innovation Opportunities Portal

21

Idea/Proposal Submissions

Encourage innovators to take a wider view of innovation with emphasis on Relevance Awareness of state-of-the-art Consideration of infusion paths

Heilmeier Questions: What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely

no jargon. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice? What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be

successful? Who cares? If you're successful, what difference will it make? What are the risks and the payoffs? How much will it cost? How long will it take? What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success?

22

Evaluation/Selection Criteria Relevance

Address a problem, challenge, need, opportunity with clearly identified/characterized potential for significant impact, system level solutions, and substantial benefits to the center, agency, nation, and/or world

Innovative technology concepts to enable formulation of application to one or more of the Space Technology Grand Challenges

Collaboration

Involve collaborations and partnerships within Langley, other NASA Centers, other government agencies, universities, industry, and the public

Solicit and consider comments from technical community

Innovativeness

Past IPP Evaluation Criteria – Novelty and Potential Impact, Technical Merit, Value to NASA, Team Experience

Advance the basic principles of a technology and demonstrate application to or evaluation of a capability associated with one or more of the Space Technology Grand Challenges

23

Idea/Proposal Review Form

24

Evaluation/Selection Process

Evaluators CIF – Space Technology Innovations

RTC Leads

CIF – Center-Wide Innovations Center Chief Technologist

Selections made by Center Chief Technologist Prompt Reviews and Selections (within 1 month of submissions)

Prompt Actionable Feedback (within 1 month of selections) Acknowledgement and recognition Explanation of strengths and areas for improvement

Frequent and visible communication of status and progress Reviews in progress, completed, and awaiting selection Selection announcements Feedback to all submitters

25

Results of LIOP PilotHits Participants Ideas Comments

C&I Initiative

3300 182 62 18

Center Innovation

Fund8800 319 111 120

Future Challenges

930 109 9 24

Totals 13030 610 182 162

• 48 Branches/Offices contributed ideas and comments

• 11 C&I projects selected, 10 Center-Wide (small) projects selected

• 30 CIF Projects Selected• 18 Space Technology Innovations• 12 Center-Wide Innovations

Key Insights• Desired levels of visitation and total ideas achieved• Greater diversity of ideas and sources than expected• Idea quality high, but collaboration limited (fewer comments than ideas)

• Most ideas entered toward end of event (~56% on last day)• Majority of ideas came from civil servants (~86%)• Most ideas came from Technical Organizations (~85%)• A third of all ideas were submitted for “review team only”

• Inhibitors: Uncertainty in funding, complicated login/password process, uncomfortable with open platform for this purpose, cynicism and resistance to change

26

Lessons Learned – Tools & Design Awareness

Communicate, communicate, communicate, . . . Exploit multiple communication channels

Access Easy access is really, really important IT security requirements make access a challenge Need to learn how to better manage SaaS tools

Challenge Event Designs Conducting simultaneous challenges can be confusing (3

Simultaneous Challenges may be too many) Too many topic areas can be confusing (13 Space Technology

Grand Challenges in 3 categories, 10 Revolutionary Technical Challenges)

Important to provide background information – guidelines, process descriptions, POCs, etc.

Event design requires clear understanding of workflow models and tool attributes

27

Lessons Learned – Culture

Contributions Need to overcome hesitance to share ideas Need better guidance for answering Heilmeier questions Need mechanism to increase comments, votes, and collaboration Need to educate contributors regarding IP rights and processes

Assessment and Selection Need mechanism to make doing reviews a priority Submitters very appreciative of prompt and meaningful feedback Need a mechanism to support promising ideas needing further

development

Soliciting Ideas vs. Proposals Asking for ideas rather than proposals confused many submitters Need to overcome ingrained “proposal culture”

28

Epilogue

Success of the LIOP pilot was jeopardized by CIF funding delays

In response to funding challenges projects were implemented using a phased approach Startup Phase – small infusion of funds to initiate an expanded

portfolio of projects (10-15% of total project budget) Ramp-Up Phase – fully fund projects down-selected from Startup

phase 11 of 18 projects received additional funding None received full budget request due to reduction in OCT CIF funding

Several CWI ideas were deemed worth implementation but were only provided FTE. Many of these were pursued and implemented. Sanction by the Center was sufficient encourage the PIs to persevere.

Numerous ideas/proposals not selected for funding were archived and were reconsidered when late year and early FY12 funds became available