Introducing the Constructive Innovation Review and Adaptation Process (CIRAP)
Part 2/3 of Constructive Innovation Review and Adaptation Process
In my previous post, I discussed the Innovator’s Dilemma and how it can be challenging to convey solutions to people who may not even be aware of the problem. Now that you are aware of this particular problem, in this second part of my three-part series, I would like to introduce a solution.
CIRAP is a structured, incremental process focusing on three primary objectives: (1) to review an innovation proposal on its own merits, (2) to provide constructive feedback and support as proposals are reviewed and revised, and (3) to place suitable emphasis on rewarding innovators for taking initiative and delivering value for their organisations.
CIRAP takes an innovation proposal through iterative stages of review and revision, helping it to evolve from an idea into a potentially commercialisable product, service or process.
The initial review is conducted anonymously to ensure that the evaluation focuses solely on the merits the idea, free from biases related to interpersonal relationships or authority dynamics, and other subjective factors. As a proposal advances through decision gates, the author(s) are recognised and rewarded for their contributions. Should the proposal be rejected, they retain the intellectual rights to their idea.
An initial proposal is an informal document, which must include at least the following four items:
A description of a problem, need or opportunity;
A description of affected stakeholders; who they are and how they are affected;
A description of proposed solution;
A description of envisioned benefits following the implementation of the proposal.
The initial proposal is never rejected on the first review. The initial proposal is not expected to be a fully viable commercial plan or a detailed technical design; it is simply an idea. The process of iterative and constructive feedback allows the author(s) to refine their thinking, address overlooked issues, and gain valuable support for their professional development.
Proposals are reviewed by a review board, which is a multi-disciplinary group of organisational representatives. The multi-disciplinary nature of the review board is crucial: it should include individuals with technical, commercial, legal, managerial, human-resources, and other relevant backgrounds that align with the organisation’s business area. Additionally, the review board is guided by the organisation’s long-term strategy, a meaningful understanding of current operations, and specific instructions from the organisation’s top leadership.
After the initial review and comments, the author(s) are invited to submit a revised proposal, which is expected to address issues and answer questions raised during the initial review. The review of the revised proposal is the first pass-or-fail gate (Gate A) in the process.
From here, the proposal will become increasingly more sophisticated in design, followed by formal description, which provides detailed descriptions for business model and technical design (Gate B) prototyping, commercial evaluation and final decision on various ways of moving forward (Gate C).
Even when a proposal is rejected, the effort is never wasted! Constructive feedback enables the author(s) to improve their ability to identify problems, needs, and opportunities, and enhances their skills in presenting solutions. It also helps organisations review and evaluate business opportunities, reassess their needs, goals, and strategy. Additionally, it allows them to better appreciate the broad talent, initiative, and positive attitudes within their workforce.
When an organisation rejects a proposal at any stage of the process, it effectively declares that the idea has no value to them. Therefore, the intellectual property rights of the initial proposal are returned to the author(s); if the author(s) choose to pursue their idea independently, they must be allowed to do so. This principle is vital for maintaining the motivation and willingness of creative individuals to present their ideas.
Please note this important distinction: while an idea and the proposed solution may be perfectly valid by their own merits, they should be rejected if they are not a good fit for organisation’s goals and strategy.
On the other hand, when a proposed idea is accepted and ultimately implemented, the author(s) expect to be recognised and rewarded for their contribution in a manner that reflects the value their insight and design work brings to the organisation. Otherwise, they may feel exploited and undervalued, losing interest in making further contributions.
With these processes in place, CIRAP ensures that every proposal is given fair consideration, and that innovators are either rewarded or empowered to pursue their ideas independently.
In the third part of this series, I will cover the Guiding Principles of the Constructive Innovation Review and Adaptation Process.
I’d love to hear your thoughts—feel free to share your comments below!