Scott Berkun bloged on Google’s “20% time” approach. For those of you that aren’t familiar with the details, I would suggest reading Scott’s post for background. I, for one, wasn’t aware that other companies have established creative time, such as 3M during the 1950′s. Post-it notes
I’m a fan of independent research, as indicated in my SIP model. An important question to ask: how efficient is establishing creative time within an organization? The model works well for a non-traditional organization such as Google. It’s worthy to note that while Google’s sky high stock price and advertising revenue certainly helps pay for this free time. Atlassian, a software development shop, recently announced a 20% initiative. I can’t help feel that this statement wasn’t well thought out. Simply letting loose of the reigns a bit doesn’t help ensure a return on investment. According to the Atlassian developer blog, the cost of this experiment is $1M.
Creativity can solve many problems, but structure is needed to help guide the process. This doesn’t mean management meddling in the projects, but rather every participant having a framework for making decisions in the creative process. A short list would include:
-
An overview from the CEO on the market, target audience and strategic vision;
-
An understanding of the scientific method;
-
A basis for rewards, if an idea is used by the organization; and
-
An open environment for individuals to collaborate and discuss. Email is great, but nothing beats face-to-face conversations and brainstorming.
The n-percent model doesn’t have to be limited to hip, technology companies. In fact, I have read several case studies in school that indicate companies that adopt employee-input programs are wildly successful. With a sufficient model to justify possible returns, including intangible elements such as employee satisfaction and productivity, even staid organizations could benefit. However, without an objective justification, such a program would be a disservice to shareholders.
