Of Moonlighting Police and Innovation

Recently, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette featured an interesting story around innovations within the Pittsburgh police department. From the article we learn:

“The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police yesterday finalized its new method of handling side jobs for moonlighting officers who provide security at banks, bars, ballparks and other businesses. The bureau will use a computerized system to keep track of all off-duty details and charge employers $3.85 per hour per officer, a policy that went into effect on Monday for the Pirates’ home opener. Previously, if a business wanted to rent off-duty city police, it would contact one of several officers who ran their own security networks. That person would line up officers for the job in return for a cut of the pay.”

This concept makes a great deal of sense as local law enforcement has quickly become the eyes and ears of Homeland Security and even National Security within their communities. In addition, the police already engage in outside enforcement exercises where the costs are not easily tracked and fall outside of the standard 40 hour work week.

We have written about law enforcement innovation many times on this blog and have sought the expertise of Dr. Paul O’Connell to offer his assessment of the utility of this concept. Dr. O’Connell is a leading expert on the Compstat system that helped transform operations of the New York City police force. In an email exchange with Dr. O’Connell he said:

“This is a new application of a Compstat-like system. I haven’t seen it before. It makes sense and was a long time in coming.

Departments have traditionally struggled with this issue, having cops perform “security-related” jobs off duty. In New York State for example, some police officers actually ride around in patrol cars in OTHER jurisdictions as “part-time” police officers. This is very cost-efficient for the secondary employer, but places the original employer at great risk, from a liability standpoint. Departments have attempted to limit this practice, but it is often a bargained-for item in their collective bargaining agreement or, at the very least, a firmly engrained practice. To change this practice, you really need to change the culture.

This is another example of how “just counting, can bring about a positive change.” By seeing who is doing this, when and where, the employers can discern certain patterns that will inform their decisions regarding allowing this practice. It’s also a good way to see who is calling in sick after “racking up the overtime” during their regular days off. This is behavior that certainly needs to be monitored, and it seems reasonable that outside employers seeking to employee these people “as police officers” should be asked to pay a moderate fee for that right. As the article says, it’s used to offset insurance costs, etc. that are being incurred and borne by the original employer/jurisdiction.

There is no new technology or process involved here. It’s simply an example of inventive application of a Compstst-like system.– a good use of imagination and innovation.”

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Service Innovation - The New Business

While most everyone is familiar with product innovation, few are conscious of service innovation. However, the latest statistics from Peer Insight, a service-innovation research firm, reveal that service industries are rapidly overtaking product industries as the most prevalent and profitable forms of business. As the service industry grows, so to do consumer expectations. Increasingly, customers weigh the services that come along with products they purchase, such as the ‘Geek Squad’ support that comes with many products purchased at Best Buy, when deciding whether or not to purchase more expensive products, such as homes or electronics.

This change in the market’s attitude has drawn the attention of executives at IBM, who organized the SRI Initiative; a consortium of academics and executives from both the public and private sector, who gather to consider the effects of service innovation on the broader business community.

For more information on service innovation and SRI’s vision statement, read Reena Jana’s article in Business Week and visit the SRI Initiative website.

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Can a Company Be Run as a Democracy?

Ternary Software Inc. is a small company with a very interesting approach to management. Ternary runs itself as a democracy, and requires that all decisions are made unanimously by employees who have voiced their opinion to the issue at hand. CEO Brian Robertson says that ever since switching to a democratic management style, Ternary has enjoyed a quicker decision process, added employee buy-in, and increased innovation. As for his role as the chief executive officer and facilitator for employee consensus, Robertson says, “It takes getting beyond your ego.”

Several other companies use similar management strategies systems, but none to the extent of a unanimous agreement policy. Google Inc. prides itself on an egalitarian culture that encourages executives to field questions from employees on a weekly basis. Honest Tea Inc. shares its financials with employees in hopes that they will contribute to annual planning and strategy meetings. Each of these companies value the diverse perspectives and ideas that reside in there very own organization, and are determined to tap into this potential.

Ryan Quinn, a management professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business, believes that these unorthodox practices can succeed at both small and large organizations if the company is willing to sacrifice some profits in the short-term, and pursue innovation and other goals that might pay off later.  To the contrary, Harry Katz, dean of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, feels that Ternary’s management strategy can only exist in smaller companies because of conflicts of interest between management and employees. Either way, Ternary’s democratic management style is worth the debate as it bespeaks to the continual shift away from the traditional top-down management practices to a style that better embodies the “diversity of the crowds.” In this case, the diversity of the crowds is coming from within the organization.

Please read the Wall St. Journal article, “Can a Company Be Run as a Democracy?” [1] [2]

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Summer Reading Assignments and Managing Velocity

Jason Sonnenfelt from Mind & Media posted a simply classy and elegant response to my recent posting on web 2.0 and the Government. This is the kind of dialogue I could participate in all day.

Ultimately, my anguish remains not with any one of Jason’s, “now wait one substantive minute” arguments, but with the speed at which web 2.0 has evolved (in the commercial space) and how slow parts of the government have been to harness or consider its power. “Effectiveness” is not my sole concern, but rather the art of remaining relevant. Think about the speed in which the government has approached web 2.0.  Where is the U.S. Department of Innovation? Where is the over-authorization of Gen X & Y to usher in solution sets inside the government? Where is the urgency? With the world moving at such a rapid pace, why does our government think take a ‘wait and see’ approach, instead of dipping feet in and experimenting with agility and an eye towards innovation? The only real risk I see is potentially helping to solve massive problems through new and not old narratives.

Consider the speed of our government amidst this staggering fact as stated recently by the Librarian of Congress: “It took two centuries for the Library of Congress to acquire today’s analog collection—32 million printed volumes, 12.5 million photographs, 59.5 million manuscripts and other materials – a total of more than 134 million physical items. By contrast, with the explosion of digital information, it now takes only about 15 minutes for the world to produce an equivalent amount of information.” Now read that quote again (go on) and let it sink in. That is a simply amazing and humbling statistic.

After reading this quote, I am in awe at the speed of change in the world and in our country. And then I ask, “Am I relevant in that world? How will I stay relevant? Should I just dip my feet in the fast moving stream?”  We have little choice: its time to jump in and define new rule sets. Yes, worry about privacy and inclusion, but please let’s not use those important rule sets from hurting our ability to define new ones.

Kudos to Jason on his very thoughtful blog postings. I look forward to our next exchange. Such musings bespeak a valuable consultant. Now go on Jason; pick another fight with me so I can assign you some additional summer reading. I promise it won’t be filled with anything but change agents, velocity management, horizontal ideas and last but never least, innovation. Start with Extreme Future by the way, I just finished it and it was excellent. Class dismissed!

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.

Innovators of the Future

Publicis & Hal Riney recently began their first campaign aimed towards encouraging children to think innovatively [1]. Riney successfully launched two commercials through the Ad Council for the Department of Commerce that portray a boy and a girl creating two different inventions: A cat magnet and a personalized robot. In addition to humor, the two commercials also provide the tagline, “Anything’s possible. Keep thinking.” Riney hopes to inspire America’s youth to share their novel ideas amongst each other, while having fun doing so. There is one major obstacle that stands in the way:

“Kids think of inventors like Alexander Graham Bell or Albert Einstein as historical figures. They don’t think of inventing things as something they can do.”

All too often, American children are turned off from science and engineering at far too young of an age.  To counter these early-adopted viewpoints, Rhiney’s new website enourages children to think creatively, learn about patents, and use collaborate. Riney understands the importance of innovation and its impact on our country, and is without a doubt leading young Americans in the right direction.

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.