Editor's Corner

The Editor’s Corner provides perspective from the Editor in Chief on critical topics for systems engineering, either through their own words or by inviting a guest writer.

19 May 2025

Protecting Innovation

In today's world of high complexity and competition, innovation is required not only for improvement and growth, but for survival.

So what is innovation? Academic definitions abound and no two seem to match exactly. (e.g. X,Y,Z).

Rather than quibbling over minor wording differences, let's start with a "good enough" definition that seems to take into account the most important aspects:

Innovation is the ability to generate and execute new ideas - incremental, evolutionary, or revolutionary—and it starts with creativity. (IDEO 2025)

If we can agree that innovation is important for everyone, no matter the specific context, then it is worthwhile spending some time understanding what enables an individual or group or organization to be innovative.

The first question we should examine is, "Can individuals be innovative on their own?" and the simple answer is "yes". The more nuanced answer is, "yes - but it requires some specific skills that not everyone has." For an individual to be innovative, they need:

• Curiosity - In general, curiosity means a strong desire to learn or know. In the context of innovation, it can also mean more specifically establishing behaviors that question the status quo (asking the five whys, and why not and what if). Curiosity also requires openness to new ideas and developing comfort with the risk and change.
• Creativity - Closely linked to curiosity, creativity is the ability to generate original and unique ideas. As a skill, this includes utilizing techniques to promote divergent thinking and explore multiple possibilities while resisting the urge to settle on a single idea too quickly. Creativity also includes developing one’s imagination — the ability to concretely visualize what can be versus what is. (CLO 2023)
• Problem Solving - Trying to solve a problem is often the root of innovation. Identifying and resolving problems can lead to developing new ideas and processes. (CLO 2023) Solving a problem depends on correctly identifying its cause so the best solution can be selected and implemented for sustained results. (ASQ 2025)
• Critical Thinking - We must be able to analyze the problem(s) being addressed. Critical thinking explores underlying issues and root causes, clarifies gaps between the current and desired states, analyzes risks and rewards, and evaluates the outcomes of experimentation and prototyping. (CLO 2023)
• Resilience and Adaptability - Though two separate skillsets, these are closely enough related that it is worth discussing them together here. Resilience is the ability to cope with setbacks — particularly learning and moving on from failures. Adaptability is the flexibility with which humans cope with environmental challenges (modified from Brown 2012) and is necessary to cope with the waves of change experienced in cultures of continuous innovation. (CLO 2023)

As individuals, we can begin to understand how we fair in these areas. But being a creative, curious, problem solving, critically thinking, resilient and adaptive person does not guarantee innovation. The truth is, while an individual can be innovative, to tackle truly complex problems often requires a team. The last critical skill an individual often needs to be innovative (IDEO) in itself implies the team context:

• Collaboration - "Innovation doesn’t happen in isolation. It occurs when humans come together and collaborate, which can happen at many levels." (CIO 2023) Collaboration is working effectively with a broad ranging group of other people, communicating clearly, embracing a range of perspectives, and sharing knowledge.

I've heard many different people share their views that systems engineering is by necessity a group activity. Whether it be people at conferences citing our discipline as a "team" or "contact" sport, the frequent statement that systems engineering "can't happen in a vacuum", or the implication in the 2019 update of the definition of systems engineering by the INCOSE Fellows as "transdiciplinary", we as a community seem to agree that we have to have multiple perspectives from multiple people to be successful. The same is true for innovation.

In any group - be it a team focusing on a specific problem or a large business organization or enterprise - innovation has become a common theme. And there are things that groups need to do to foster innovation. Though there are a lot of ways to think about what makes an organization innovative, I've had success in my career working with the Quality of Interaction or Qi index. This is a tool that allows groups to assess how innovative they are by looking at two main factors: psychological safety and cognitive diversity. Psychological safety is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. (Reynolds and Lewis 2018) Innovation - and in fact most problem solving efforts - include things like brainstorming, where it's important to get many different ideas on the table. In an environment without psychological safety, however, people generally only share ideas that fit within the current status quo. If innovation is in part challenging the status quo, it is easy to see how this could stifle innovation. Cognitive diversity is having differences in information, experiences, and processing styles within a group. A study by Reynolds and Lewis in 2017 found that a specific aspect of this - how individuals think about and engage with new, uncertain, and complex situations - was one of the most critical aspects of cognitive diversity for fostering innovation.

What does it look like if groups don't have both characteristics of cognitive diversity and psychological safety? Again, I like the clarity of the Qi index here. (Human Insight) We have all been in groups where individuals have strong opinions and cannot or will not be persuaded by other views. While there is a diversity of opinions, I'm sure your experience, like mine, was that this was not a terribly innovative - or maybe even effective - group to be a part of. In their framework, Human Insight defines an organization with high cognitive diversity but low psychological safety as "oppositional". And for me, at least, the common use of this word categorizes experiences in these groups fairly well.

On the other end of the spectrum, organizations can have very high psychological safety, but everyone in the organization essentially approaches problems and thinking in the same ways. Human Insight defines these groups as "uniform". It's useful for having strong team spirit and branding and, depending on what work you're doing may be great. But, with everyone bringing the same kinds of ideas to the table, the group will continue to solve problems in the same ways. Uniform may have strengths - but innovation isn't generally one of them.

Then, of course, there are groups that score lowly on both factors, where individuals generally think alike and are worried about being punished if they do bring something different forward. The Qi Index defines these groups as "defensive" and, again, I think the word sums up a lot of our experiences in groups where nothing but the status quo is desired or even tolerated. For myself, I try to get out of these groups as quickly as possible. Even if it's an environment you're comfortable being in, at the end of the day, it's difficult to find much innovation in these groups.

So what does all of this mean for you, the systems engineer who thinks innovation is important but isn't sure where to go from here? First, I'd suggest each of us start with ourselves. Think about the skills outlined above, and have an honest conversation with yourself. "Do I really bring all of these skills to the table? Which skills are stronger for me? Where could I use some help?" Self-awareness is an important first step for all of us and, as a bonus, if you spend time understanding where you fit, people in your groups are more likely to listen when you bring group-level thoughts forward.

Which brings us to the next step: think about the group(s) your a part of. Most of us are part of more than one - maybe we're on multiple projects at work, each with its own team; we volunteer with a local youth program, or sports team, or church; maybe we play softball at our church or pick up footie games with old friends in the park. Consider your experiences in these groups and where they fall on the spectrum from "generative" (highly fostering innovation) to oppositional, uniform, or defensive. Reflect on how your behavior changes between these groups. Do you find yourself sharing ideas openly in some settings, but exhibiting more "group think" in others? Again, there is not one right way for a group to function. On your sports team, uniformity might be highly useful.

Once you've thought about the groups you engage with, ask yourself, "Which of these groups would benefit from being more innovative?" Now you have some thoughts on places in your life where seeking out the skills that foster innovation and the culture of innovation might have a big impact.

As systems thinkers, we have a choice: preserve comfort, or pursue creativity. As Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." SEBoK evolves because systems engineers evolve — and innovation is how we stay relevant. What small step will you take today to help our field not just survive, but thrive?

Sincerely,

Learn More

AlMunthiri, O., S. Bani-Melhem, F. Mohd-Shamsudin, S. A. Al-Naqubi. 2024. "Does leading with inclusiveness promote innovative behaviors? Examining the role of work engagement and psychological Safety." International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 32(10): 2468-2493. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2023-4003

Oxford Bibliographies. 2025. "Adaptability". Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0047.xml

Qu, J., S. Zhao, M. Cao, J. Lu, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, and R. Zhu. 2024. "When and how is team cognitive diversity beneficial? An examination of Chaxu climate." Heliyon. 10(1). January 15, 2024. Available at: https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-8440%2824%2900001-X

Reynolds, A. and D. Lewis. 2018. "The Two Traits of the Best Problem-Solving Teams." Harvard Business Review. April 2, 2018. Available at: https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-The-Two-Traits-of-the-Best-Problem-Solving-Teams.pdf

Reynolds, A. and D. Lewis. 2017. "Teams Solve Problems Faster When They’re More Cognitively Diverse." Harvard Business Review. March 30, 2017. Available at: https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-Teams-Solve-Problems-Faster-When-Theyre-More-Cognitively-Diverse.pdf