We all know that innovation is an essential component to any organization's success. It is often difficult to know how to turn innovative ideas into practical implementation. Based on extensive analysis of employees and projects at an international oil company, the authors present three strategies to assist R&D teams in ensuring that their new technologies are adopted. Innovation should begin with the users. Instead of focusing on top-down approaches, R&D teams need to look at what their users really want and then adapt technology offerings to meet those needs. R&D teams must ensure that they select the right early adopters for new technology. Finally, teams must be proactive in addressing financial concerns by suggesting creative solutions that minimize the amount of money and time that field units will have to spend on new technology.Innovation is a fundamental value for large organizations. What does it take to make an R&D project a technology solution that is actually adopted by the ground teams?This question was explored by analyzing several data sources from a large multinational oil company. We reviewed 7,000 drilling projects over a decade, looked at the career histories of more than 30,000 engineers going back to 1979, and conducted interviews with current engineers, managers and executives. The company has shown a steady interest in innovation. It has spent billions on R&D each year and generated almost 10,000 patents. We also found that drilling costs dropped by 15% when the company adopted new technologies that were developed through its R&D efforts. This resulted in an average of $90 million per subsidiary per year. In an era of low oil prices these savings were significant.Despite the firm's strong investment in innovation (as well a clear indicator that innovation pays off financial), we discovered that the company struggled to gain internal traction for new technologies that its central R&D departments had developed. We identified several common obstacles and three strategies that proved to be particularly effective in encouraging the adoption of new tools.Begin with the usersLarge companies often adopt a top-down approach to technology development. They create new technologies based upon high-level strategic financial and financial considerations, and then push those tools down to their individual subsidiaries and teams. Although this can be effective, we found that frontline engineers who were responsible for implementation were often reluctant to follow instructions from distant R&D researchers on how to do their job. One senior engineer said that the operating arms don't want any new technology unless it is absolutely necessary. These projects are already prone to uncertainty and risk. If anything goes wrong, they can sink into the sand.We found that a bottom up approach is often more effective than a top-down one to overcome this resistance. Another engineer we spoke to said that his subsidiary's chief of technology was against new technologies coming from headquarters. He claimed they were a waste of money and time. R&D would always pitch new technologies to the subsidiary before they could be evaluated by anyone on the ground. This engineer was able to see the new system R&D was creating to reduce oil well water seepage. He also visited headquarters. After returning from his trip, he shared the technology with his colleagues. They decided to ignore the chief of technology and just implement the solution. The team saw an immediate reduction in water seepage. Their success convinced the boss to approve the technology across the entire subsidiary.This new technology was not plug-and-play like many advances. Project engineers needed to conduct a series experiments and adapt the solution to their particular site in order for it to work outside of the lab. If people aren't enthusiastic about a project like this they can always use the need to adapt as an excuse for not implementing it or declining. When people get on board, they will embrace the challenge and work hard to make this a success. R&D teams need to engage with people who will actually use the solutions they propose, not with bosses who approve of budgets.If the R&D team is able to win over one or more believers, they can see if their new creation really does improve the world. It doesn't always work. They will be able to present a stronger case to other people if they have success with one field unit.Choose the Right Early AdoptersHowever, the first step is to start with users. R&D teams must identify the users who will be most open to new technologies in order to maximize their chances of success. These could include people who are frustrated by the status quo, such as engineers who had suffered from water seepage for a long time. Or it could be people who have a particular interest in the new technology.If an R&D team is developing a digital version for an analog control system, it may start with the operational group who developed the system. They would have the most context and knowledge to help them understand the benefits. To better connect R&D with field engineers, the company studied implemented two programs. First, it identified engineers who had both operational and research experience and ensured that R&D teams updated these engineers on any new developments in their areas of research. The company also established R&D outposts, which allowed researchers to rotate between different units. This allowed them to promote new technologies, better understand field engineers' operational needs, and in turn, allow them to tailor their pitches and solutions to each team's needs.Reduce the money barrierOne of the main reasons teams won't comply with requests for new systems adoption is that they often require significant capital investment and man-hours. These barriers don't have to be insurmountable.There are many creative ways to get the resources you need. This could be through grants, incubators, external funding, or any combination thereof. The R&D team won over the field engineers by convincing an internal venture capital fund to provide the funds for the initial trial of water seepage.A more effective way to do this is to combine projects of different sizes. Our analysis revealed that while R&D teams may be keen to see a technological breakthrough in a large project, managers of those projects are unlikely to accept such a high level of risk. The R&D team would then find a smaller project to serve as a guinea, and fund the big project for the first round of implementation.It was a win-win situation. The big project had relatively low costs, so even if something went wrong, it would not have any major impact. If the project succeeded, they would have the proof that the technology could be used more widely. It also gave small projects access to technology that was otherwise too expensive, which meant that the managers of these teams were more than willing to take on additional risk. R&D teams rarely have the resources to fully pay for the costs of new technology implementation. It is important to find creative ways to bring local champions aboard.***R&D departments cannot take users for granted when it comes to technology rollouts within their organization. Companies must be able to treat their users as partners and understand their needs, rather than forcing them to implement solutions that don't work. This means that you must start from the bottom, identify the most potential early adopters, and address the financial and other challenges that prevent successful implementation.
