Getting a great plan past the boss’s desk is hard | Hacker News Reader

Getting a great plan past the boss’s desk is hard

bbc.com

A few organizations have tried to deal with this by having multiple people who can say yes to a new idea.

Or, in California, where overreaching IP terms in employment contracts are illegal, you can leave and take your new idea somewhere else, which is why Silicon Valley is here.

Basically it's the complex enterprise sales process with multiple stakeholders. Doesn't matter if you're inside or outside the organization. You still have to sell your idea/product through this sometimes opaque process.

I've found that timing can be very important - don't try and force new ideas of people when they aren't receptive, keep your ideas fresh and then when there is a moment of crisis and/or demand then come forward and present your ideas and you can get a very different response.

Yes, timing is critical. Also finding an influential senior supporter who will sway your immediate boss. Your immediate boss has their own deliverables, deadlines and career and reputational concerns to manage, and your bright new idea may be seen as a threat to all that. Purely technical arguments won't win the day; it's necessary to understand the organisational politics. Which comes down to "managing upwards", something many technical people don't do, and don't understand that they need to do to make an impact in large hierarchical orgs. I know it took me a long time to understand these factors.

At Nokia there is no frontiers to innovation, they just released the game changing 3310. A true example of listening to people's ideas.

I was reading this while remembering my time at Nokia and how I gave up putting ideas forward because of so much bureaucracy and political infighting. The few times my ideas got traction they were whole sale lifted into other products with zero credit going to myself.

But they still got a lot of media attention from that. It was reported in non-tech news and non-tech people were talking about it, at least here in Austria, Europe. Even if they do not buy that 3310, but these people heard at least once that Nokia is back.

It is obviously not an innovation, but IMHO it was a good PR move from Nokia.

The smell of sarcasm is there nicely, since you'd expect innovation by going back to the good things but they even failed at that.

Most important sentence, IMHO:

> “The moment you focus on short-term profits, and not long-term revenues, you put handcuffs on innovation.”

the essence: ultimately, what people care about is, "what's in it for them."

I like to think that if your idea is truly good: It's your responsability to gather data, calculate metrics, do small tests and to find an iterative and lean way to implement it. It's hard, and in reallity intuition in itself can be quite powerful, but in a company it's all about measuring what is the best next move.

That sounds much closer to the definition of management than to my job description.

I find that most engineers overestimate the portion of their job that can be satisfied by technical skill alone. Dale Carnegie states in the preface of "How to win Friends and Influence People" that even in fields as technical as engineering only 15% of job success is purely technical.

If you have a truly good idea--one you think should go up the management chain--how much are you willing to handcuff yourself by your job description? Fwiw, I've always interpreted the vague "technical leadership" parts of senior eng job descriptions to encompass exactly this. Leading people is a lot more than just telling them where to go.

> ...in a company it's all about measuring what is the best next move.

The article mentions a $10M investment that could be worth $1B in the future?

I think you can explain your estimate and justify it as reasonable, but you can't measure it. Not really. If the company requires measurements to prove success, they're really just interested in the short term. Or they have double standards around what counts as good evidence, giving a pass to the status quo.

That means any idea that could be a huge benefit has to come from someone who also has the skills to research and execute it. That's going to be a huge barrier to innovation, and it could potentially cost the business a huge amount of money.

On the flip side, how many great ideas inside a company come from people just spitballing and who have no idea on the implementation side?

Perhaps some game-changing things come through that way, but for most "everyday innovation" it'll be people with a fresh mindset, but that enhanced context that comes from knowing how they'd tackle it (i.e. if they don't have the execution skills, then the ability to research and propose).

The base idea of the article explains: Why to invest into risky thing when the daily business works? You will never change the game but you can also sucessful.

How do I fit that into my micro-managed dsm'ed scrum day ?

If you've ever worked within a company and also done cold sales for a startup you would have discovered this inertia is commonplace whether you're making suggestions inside or from outside. I've spent time researching people as prospects in key posts where they are basically responsible for looking at better ways of doing things, contacted them only to have them either not reply or say 'not interested' without seeing what I'm even talking about. There are innovators around, just not the majority.

Can somebody define great? I like how the article talks about this whole thing without validating what great means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#Examples that overcame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

"Your idea is far more likely to die on your boss’s desk than it is to reach the CEO."

Exception to the rule: Tim Betners-Lee's boss, who wrote "vague, but exciting" on the proposal of the World Wide Web. http://info.cern.ch/Proposal.html

The CERN doesn't have a CEO, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com