A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.4

Here's where things get interesting, where we start to try to apply The Power of Pull's "new approach to value creation" to the actual, real-world workings of UCP. 

"When we serve people with disabilities and their families, the economics of it are very difficult. We know that here in the United States we've been experiencing an economic downturn. It creates very difficult challenges for us and our service wing, and for the programs that we provide." 

Stephen Bennett, UCP CEO & President*

*  *  *  *  *

This (below) -- on the whole and in a nutshell -- is John Seely Brown & Co.'s advice for organizations facing "difficult challenges". I'll explain how it's derived in a sec.

In order to thrive in a post-Big Shift world, individuals and institutions should consider how they move from innovating at a product and service level (i.e., flooding the market with new, marginally improved products) to innovating at an institutional level.

Okay:

In "A Tale...9.3.2B" I pointed out how UCP repeatedly touts its own history / longevity as a selling point. When it dawned on me that it does that, I went back to The Power of Pull and unearthed this sentence: “What we knew yesterday -- either as employees or in terms of what our institution as a whole knows about its business -- is proving to be less and less helpful with the challenges and opportunities we confront today." 

"Our history" is proving to be less and less helpful today.

How much less helpful? 

So much that the need to make significant changes has become imperative for most organizations. And the real bummer? Cutting costs and developing new, marginally differentiated products and services in attempts to raise revenues probably isn't going far enough. 

We can collectively kiss business as usual goodbye.

Q1: What is going far enough? What will work? More specifically, where are the rich new sources of growth to be found?

A1: On the periphery of the organization. Resist messing with your core operations, the authors say. Seek out "edge players" instead.

Q2: Why edge players?

A2: Because they're more likely to introduce you to new insights and help you more rapidly develop -- ready for this? -- new knowledge stocks.

Q3: Aren't knowledge stocks old hat? 

A3: No, it's hoarding and fixating on them that's to be guarded against. An organization actually makes hay from its knowledge stocks. (People value the One-Stop Resource Guide, for example, and that leads them, in turn, to donate to UCP.) It’s a balancing act. "As clockspeed increases, refreshing the stocks of what we know by participating in flows of new knowledge is fundamental to performance improvement. Stocks are both a means and an end to participation in knowledge flows."

So:

Participating in flows of new knowledge on the edge is the way to go. 

Is it the way UCP should go?

Hmmm...

One thing I don't know is to what extent UCP may need to enact major change, i.e., how badly it needs to transform its mindset in order to survive and prosper in tomorrow's world. (Here I'm trying to juggle thoughts about both UCP-National and its larger affiliate network simultaneously. No doubt a ridiculous thing to try to do.) It depends on its competitive situation**. If things are still "difficult," due either to Big Shift forces of globalization and rapid advancements in digital technology OR to a down economy, then major change may be needed and JSB's answers / approach may be advisable.

That's one way of looking at things. 

Say, on the other hand, though, that the situation has eased -- that things are returning more or less to normal and it's no longer as hard as it was 2-3 years ago for UCP to serve its customers. (i.e., that it's not imperative to make major changes) If that's the case, might the authors' notion of innovating at the institutional level still be worth exploring simply because it's a better way of doing things, a better way of creating value?

'S'far as I'm concerned --
Until and unless cerebral palsy and UCP are done away with, we need to continue to look for better ways of doing things. 
Alluding to the very beginnings of this series and rephrasing this post's biggest question: 

Could innovating at the institutional level make UCP a better, more effective hope machine?

I think there's a distinct possibility that it could. So, in subsequent posts I'll keep probing:

• Why might growth opportunities for UCP be brighter on the edge(s)? What about in those areas where, unlike for-profit firms, UCP faces very little or no competition: is it better off trying to innovate around its core operations and processes? 

• If choosing to participate in flows of new knowledge on the edge seems prudent, then -- what's the prescription for doing it right? What would innovating at the institutional level look like at UCP?

In addressing those, I'll want to scrutinize some of UCP's more recent innovations: how to categorize them, how to think of them in light of the authors' advice, etc. Here I'm thinking of the World CP Challenge. I'm thinking of Mission Driven Business. I'm thinking of Life Labs. (all on the national level) And -- while I don't think it qualifies as an innovation -- the Emerging Leaders Academy is related and comes to mind, as well. I also hope to be able to address it vis-a-vis JSB.

*source: UCP Annual Report '10-'11

**I hope to be able to give more thought to UCP's competition in section 11. Notes to self: Red Treehouse competes in some ways with UCP. And, three categories of affiliate-competitors that come to mind are (1.) independent therapy clinics (2.) intermediate care facilities, and (3.) hospital comprehensive CP programs.