1/2 Free Articles left Register for more

Subscribe Sign In

Diversity Latest Magazine Popular Topics Podcasts Video Store The Big Idea Visual Library Case
Selections
Innovation

Embrace a Little Chaos When Innovating

Under Pressure
by
 Hila Lifshitz-Assaf and
 Sarah Lebovitz
September 15, 2020
 Summary
 Save
 Print
 8.95 Buy Copies
Johannes Mann/Getty Images
The Covid-19 crisis has put many product development teams in a tough bind: they’re being asked to
rapidly accelerate their processes, but research shows that extreme time pressure often stifles creative
work. Best practices for innovation emphasize upfront coordination and synchronization, all of which
take time and can’t be rushed. Is it really possible for organizations to push creative teams to work
faster without sacrificing quality?
Our recent research suggests a simple yet counterintuitive strategy to do just that: Teams tasked with
rapid innovation should forego time-consuming upfront processes and embrace a mindset of minimal
and adaptive coordination.
To better understand what strategies are more or less effective for fast-paced innovation, we tracked the
development of 13 health-tech projects across two hackathons. Ad-hoc teams were given just 72 hours
to develop assistive technologies, such as remotely-operated respiratory devices and seizure alert
devices, completely from scratch. Despite the significant challenges these teams faced, we were
inspired to see that six of the 13 teams were able to successfully accelerate the product development
process — a process that normally takes weeks or months — into just 72 hours.
Why were these six teams successful while the remainder failed? We examined everything from
differences in participants’ areas of expertise to variation across their educational and professional
backgrounds, but these factors did not explain the results. The teams all had similar levels of expertise,
were tackling equally challenging health-tech problems, and had equal access to resources, materials,
and technologies. The only common denominator we found was the teams’ work processes.
Specifically, our analysis determined that the failed attempts all shared two common pitfalls:

Pitfall 1: Compressing established processes into a tight time frame.

Less successful teams imported standard innovation best practices and compressed them to fit the
shorter time frame. For example, one participant said, “I think that Agile and Scrum methods are really
good frameworks for a team…So, like, speed that up in the hackathon. The once-a-day stand up
meeting, maybe we do it every two hours.”
It’s natural to cling to familiar processes when faced with uncertainty. However, many of these standard
processes simply don’t work when compressed into such a short period of time, leading only to
frustration and failure.

Pitfall 2: Attempting to fully coordinate upfront.

In general, investing time and effort upfront to coordinate and build shared understanding of work
processes makes teams more efficient. And under time pressure, coordination is often even more
important, as it reduces costly miscommunications. However, when it comes to innovation, this
approach can backfire.
Upfront coordination and agreement on design direction impedes the flexibility that is needed to
innovate under extreme time pressure. In the hackathons, teams that adopted the full coordination
approach would continue to work towards their agreed-upon designs even in the face of unexpected
technological challenges. As one participant shared in a retrospective interview, “At some point we
thought of trying a different approach, but we thought our [original] approach would be more robust.”
This unwillingness to waver from the plan precluded them from testing new, potentially better and
faster options.
So, what can you and your team do to avoid these pitfalls? The teams that successfully designed fully
functioning health-tech devices from scratch in just three days consistently employed the following two
strategies:

Strategy 1: Abandon traditional processes.

New conditions require new processes. Instead of attempting to compress existing, known innovation
processes to fit the extremely limited time frame, the successful teams realized that a new process —
and importantly, a new mindset — was necessary. These teams embraced the ambiguity and uncertainty
of the situation, and recognized that their regular methods for organizational innovation didn’t apply.
“At work, we’ll have a meeting and discuss different concepts and usually then we pick a path, but here
we didn’t really have that luxury,” one participant explained.
The six successful teams realized that clearly defining the potential design upfront was likely not even
possible. So instead of attempting to follow a standard product development playbook, these teams’
designs emerged through rapid, iterative experimentation.

Strategy 2: Minimize upfront coordination.

The successful teams spent less than an hour discussing their plans before splitting into one- or two-
person groups to rapidly experiment with different solutions. As one participant told their team: “We
need to solve this problem, but how we get from here to there is pretty open.”

At the time, as we observed these teams, it was hard to believe that this could be a winning strategy.
Minimal coordination is extremely messy, and it doesn’t come without a cost. These teams experienced
many difficult moments, such as redundant or misdirected work efforts, that cost them valuable time
and resources. But they also gained incredible flexibility, repeatedly adapting and pivoting their
product direction in response to each other’s experiments.
For example, in one of these teams, one person assumed a component required three control buttons,
while two of their teammates, who were working on related components, assumed there would only be
two buttons. It took them a few hours to discover the miscommunication — but when they did, they
quickly adapted, deciding to leverage the opportunity to test both options.
The team had fully embraced uncertainty. When we asked one of the team members which iteration of
the component she thought would work, she shrugged her shoulders, surprised by the question, and
responded, “I have no idea. We’re going to try both.” Minimal and adaptive coordination enabled the
team to iterate collaboratively, ultimately leading to better, faster results — despite (or often, because
of) the hiccups along the way.
Though it may be counterintuitive, our research shows that ad-hoc teams tasked with innovating under
extreme time pressure will be more effective if they minimize upfront coordination and avoid
attempting to compress established work processes to fit an accelerated time frame. It’s completely
natural to seek order and stick to the familiar when things get chaotic. But sometimes, the only way to
be successful is to embrace the chaos.

Hila Lifshitz-Assaf is an Associate Professor of Technology, Operations and Statistics at NYU Stern.
See Hila’s faculty bio here.

Sarah Lebovitz is an Assistant Professor of Information Technology at the UVA McIntire School of
Commerce. See Sarah’s faculty bio here.

This article is about INNOVATION

Follow this topic

Related Topics:
  Product development

Start my subscription!
Explore HBR

 The Latest
 Most Popular
 All Topics
 Magazine Archive
 The Big Idea
 Reading Lists
 Case Selections
 Video
 Podcasts
 Webinars
 Visual Library
 My Library
 Newsletters
 HBR Press
 HBR Ascend
HBR Store

 Article Reprints
 Books
 Cases
 Collections
 Magazine Issues
 HBR Guide Series
 HBR 20-Minute Managers
 HBR Emotional Intelligence Series
 HBR Must Reads
 Tools
About HBR

 Contact Us
 Advertise with Us
 Information for Booksellers/Retailers
 Masthead
 Global Editions
  Media Inquiries
 Guidelines for Authors
 HBR Analytic Services
 Copyright Permissions
Manage My Account

 My Library
 Topic Feeds
 Orders
 Account Settings
 Email Preferences
 Account FAQ
 Help Center
 Contact Customer Service
Follow HBR

 Facebook
 Twitter
 LinkedIn
 Instagram
 Your Newsreader

 About Us
 Careers
 Privacy Policy
 Copyright Information
 Trademark Policy

Harvard Business Publishing:

 Higher Education
 Corporate Learning
 Harvard Business Review
 Harvard Business School
Copyright © 2020 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. Harvard Business
Publishing is an affiliate of Harvard Business School.