Benchmarking is the comparing of your organization to others to measure your performance and possibly identify areas for improvement. It has been common practice since the early 1900s. Frederick Taylor, an American mechanical engineer, is credited with coining the term “benchmarking” in his book, The Principles of Scientific Management. Benchmarking enables continuous learning and improvement by identifying those that are having an impact and change and following them. These learnings and improvements can nurture the innovation success of your organization. Benchmarking helps you understand how you compare to others in your industry, making it easier to identify the best practices. For example, benchmarking enables you to identify the companies that use the best technology, the fastest production time, or the lowest costs. Whatever the measurement of success you define in your benchmarking activities, a benchmarking study can help an organization's managers make strategic decisions. It may also provide some insights into where to allocate your corporate resources. A common part of the data that gets collected in benchmarking is headcount. All kinds of weird metrics come out of this, such as dollars per revenue. While this is all good, there are also some challenges that we're going to discuss.

In general, benchmarking could prove useful in business units where benchmarking data reveals which competitors are performing better than others. However, before benchmarking, you must first conduct research to know who to benchmark against. You want to benchmark peers that are similar to you. You don't want something unrelated, such as comparing a software company to a steel manufacturer. You want something similar. Similar peers could be in the same industry, have similar sizes, or they could be selling and servicing in a consistent geographic area. It can be tempting to say we want to be more like Silicon Valley. If a restaurant in Milwaukee benchmarked itself against the leading companies in Silicon Valley such as Apple, Google, or HP, that comparison would be meaningless.

Benchmarking Failures

Benchmarking has been around for quite some time, and it has some strong benefits, but there are bad that can come from benchmarking as well. The key here is that benchmarking can have negative consequences if done wrong. For example, if you benchmark against peers who are poorly chosen, it is not going to work. This can lead to bad decision-making and can destroy organizations. Therefore, it is important to handpick your benchmark peers to get accurate insights. For example, in the late 90s and early 2000s, MCI WorldCom, a major telecom company in the United States, was reporting results far better than any of its peers. AT&T and others attempted to benchmark themselves to find out how MCI could have a such standout performance. This resulted in the industry changing its strategies and its investment models to chase the MCI WorldCom results. While their competitors tried to play catch up, MCI WorldCom continued to report surprising results. That is until authorities revealed that MCI WorldCom was practicing fraudulent accounting practices. They overshowed the revenue streams, and they misallocated expenses to make their results look good.

People had made decisions based on a benchmark against somebody who looked like they were performing outstandingly. To compete with how MCI was performing, they changed how they operated. MCI WorldCom eventually went bankrupt, but AT&T survived unscathed. They had size, scale, and all the capabilities. However, others in the industry got trapped in the benchmark. They made bad decisions, just like a company that I was at called Teligent. I was one of the original five founders of Teligent, and we got wrapped up in it. We were a competitive local exchange carrier, or what was called a CLEC at the time. We looked at MCI’s results and wondered how they were able to deliver those kinds of results. We made decisions to try to drive a performance level the same as MCI WorldCom. Eventually, Teligent ended up in bankruptcy, but I was long gone at this point. Because Wall Street was pounding on every telecom company in the industry to reach those same-level results, fast-paced innovation was essential. People made bad decisions because of a bad benchmark, and that bad benchmark was a result of fraud.

The Benchmark Trap

As a leader, whatever your role may be, odds are one of the big four consulting firms have either approached you, your CEO, or your board of directors to do an innovation benchmark on your organization. If not, count yourself lucky. If you have done an innovation benchmark, you know the nightmare this can cause for your organization. These engagements are all about comparing how an organization's innovations compare to each other’s innovation processes, approach, culture, etc. But why has this become such a hot consulting offer? Leaders in most organizations are feeling very uncertain about innovation. This may be due to their lack of ability to come up with new ideas, or because of their historical inability to implement new ideas successfully. An organization may be able to come up with an idea, but most organizations historically struggle with making those ideas real. How big of a problem is this and what are the consultants zeroing in on? There was a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit that found that only 38% of executives said their organization was, “very good at turning innovative ideas into commercial success”. When these kinds of studies come out, consultants are all over it. They quickly create a consulting service to ‘fix the problem’.

The problem is that only 38% of executives feel very good about their ability to turn innovative ideas into commercial success. When leaders benchmark their innovative approach to others, they're trying to benchmark themselves out of uncertainty and into comfort. They're uncertain because they aren't doing very well. They want to see how other people do it which causes them to try to copy the 38% to be successful. This is part of what I refer to as the benchmark trap. A single organization’s benchmarking engagement does not stand on its own because you don't benchmark against yourself. If you benchmark your organization's ability to turn out new ideas into commercial success, you are also benchmarking the quality of your peers who have been benchmarked before. You have to have somebody to benchmark against. This is the service that consultants sell. If you’re company A, and consultants have done a benchmark for Company B or Company C, they’ll do a comparison so you can determine how well you stack up. Leaders are looking for ways to stack themselves up, so they feel comfortable. However, when you benchmark yourself against competitors or industry best practices, the results will be that you become exactly like them in terms of innovation performance.

When you benchmark, you're either trying to compare yourself or you're adopting what is viewed as their best practice to you. This drives everybody in the industry to converge towards the mean in results. You're not going to be the leader. You're going to be me too. It's one of the things I always hated when I was in one of the big six consulting firms. I used to run the telecom consulting practice at Computer Sciences Corporation back in the early 90s. One of the things that we sold was benchmarking, but we also did process reengineering, consulting work, etc. We pushed on this concept of benchmarking, and I traveled all around the world and did these benchmarks. While you're selling it to the leaders, the leaders, therefore, get comfortable because they've got a document they can put in front of their board of directors, investors, or shareholders to show they’re just as good or better. As more and more companies within an industry or area focus on benchmarking and adopting best practices, everybody starts to look the same. If Company A has a best practice on innovation, and everybody copies that best practice, assuming that you can copy someone's best practice and be just as effective, you all start to look the same. I think best practices are the stupidest concept ever invented. Over my years of talking companies into doing best practices, I've seen the impact. It makes everybody average, and everybody looks the same. There is no ability to have to stand-up performance when you've adopted the same practices, approach, and strategies as everybody else. No matter how high or how low your original benchmark is, you may have been an absolute leader in sales or innovation if you hadn’t followed other’s benchmarks.

The Dangers of Comparison and Comfort

 Innovation in benchmarking can be a powerful tool. It can bring benefits when done correctly. But it can also lead companies astray if it's not handled correctly. Let’s discuss some of the consequences of innovation benchmarking. Firstly, leaders run unnecessary risks trying to replicate the benchmark results exactly. We find areas where somebody else is better than us which causes us to want to replicate and adapt it. Why is this a problem? Because benchmarking typically involves leaders looking for insights and inspiration from benchmarking peers. The benchmarking experience is often oversimplified down to exactly what people did, how they did it, when they did it, etc. If they don't, it's a black box. It's oversimplified, and it's not enough detail to where you can duplicate it. We tend to focus on why they did all these different things. Firstly, you don't have all the details, because there are things inherently behind the scenes, and secondly, you’re thinking it's a formula. As a result, this can lead companies to take unwarranted financial, strategic, or organizational risks. When you're trying to replicate the benchmark experience of a peer, that experience is often unique to the peer. There's a lot of history in an organization that is not captured in the benchmarking activity. Be careful when leaders run unnecessary risks trying to capture the magic formula of a benchmark.

The second consequence is that leaders may benchmark themselves out of uncertainty and into comfort without realizing it. When leaders take benchmarking too far, it leads to what I call the comfort trap. Leaders can miss new opportunities and threats that emerge in the market when they unknowingly benchmark themselves into comfort. While you are looking for insights from your peers, it's important to keep in mind that what works for them, may not work best for your organization. You may have a unique value proposition, a different competitive environment, different costs, or brand equity. Be careful you don’t cherry-pick those things that either make you look the same or slightly better, but no worse than your competitors.  

The third consequence is that leaders benchmark their competitors rather than taking a fresh look at their innovation approach. This is probably the one that frustrates me the most. I get calls all the time from people who read my book or who have taken the innovation bootcamp, asking why it's not working for them. Be careful, take, what somebody else is doing in the innovation approach is not something you can replicate. They failed to take a fresh look at their innovation approach. They fall into the trap of comparing themselves to others who are not their innovation peers. You want to understand and find people who are innovating, that are similar to you, and not to duplicate or replicate, but adapt to what would work for your organization and your culture. If you're just looking to copy somebody else's innovation process, it will lead to bad decision-making that can destroy your organization. When you benchmark your competition, whether, from other industries, geographies, size, scale, etc., you automatically compare yourself to others who have been successful in completely different strategies for innovation success than yours. Attempting to imitate them will lead to failure.

Example: Picking the Wrong Peer

Here’s a personal example to drive the message home. When I was CTO at HP, the CEO, Mark Hurd, had a quote that was ingrained in everything the executive team did. “If you stare at the numbers long enough, they will eventually confess”. Mark established a culture he referred to as “extreme benchmarking”. This required every leader at HP to know the key benchmark metrics for each competitor and to have a plan to meet or beat the competitor's benchmark results. There was a lot of pressure from the benchmark numbers being compared to your competitors. If your numbers were not better than theirs, then you weren't running your part of the business appropriately. You had to be prepared to answer a question from Mark, walking down the hall asking, “what were the last quarter's benchmark results for XYZ competitor? And how and what is our current?” It was insane. The result was more than a few poor business decisions on the part of HP.

One example that I was directly involved in was the cutting of HP’s investment in innovation and R&D, to match the spending of our Asia Pacific-based competitors. Now, to give you some context, HP was spending roughly 3% of product revenue in the PC group on R&D. This included both consumer and commercial business products. To compare, Apple was spending about 9% of product revenue in the R&D group. The peer that Mark was forcing us to compare against, in our Asia Pacific base competitors, was spending 0.8% of product revenue on R&D. There was constant pressure to cut resources or move things like engineering offshore to get the benchmark closer to our peer. And let me tell you, the pressure was intense. This is the perfect example of picking the wrong peer. In the case of all my conversations with Mark Hurd, it was all about this Asia Pacific competitor. I wanted three times the R&D budget so that I could compete with Apple. That was my logical argument. Mark wanted 3% of my revenue on R&D spent down to less than 1%. I pushed back hard on this approach. My one regret was not pushing back even harder or finding a way to convince Mark and others of the folly of this approach.

Now you would think with my role and personal passion for innovation, I would have been able to figure this out. Nope, I failed, and it is one of the few regrets from my time as CTO at HP. Now, whenever someone says the word benchmark, my antenna goes up. Whenever you are thinking about doing any kind of comparison, understand the context of the information. Ask yourself if that somebody or thing is a good comparison. I spent almost 10 years in one of the big six consulting houses convincing others to do benchmarks. I've been on the other side of the table, and I'll be the first to admit, that was bad advice. Given it was the most popular advice, it was the advice everybody was giving at the time. In reality, you cannot just duplicate what somebody else is doing. You have to deeply understand the context behind what you are attempting to benchmark against.

Conclusion

The best way to avoid falling into the innovation benchmark trap is not to benchmark for benchmark’s sake. Instead of getting caught in this trap, learn from your peers. Don't assume that what worked for them will work for you. You need to have some discernment as to what would work and what to ignore. If you follow blindly, your organization will become average, or worse, will be destroyed. Instead, look at what your peers are doing and ask yourself two questions: “Why are they innovating that way?” and “what can we learn from that approach?”.

It is critical to get inside the mind of your innovation peer that you've identified and understand their thought process and discern what of their approach is worth you're experimenting with. Don't adopt at wholesale, find the elements that work and experiment with them. Otherwise, your organization may drive itself right off the innovation cliff.

Innovation is often lauded as the key to success in business. After all, staying ahead of the competition is hard if you're not constantly coming up with new ideas and ways to improve your products or services. But is every idea you come up with a good thing? Is there such a thing as being too innovative?

To keep yourself honest, you may consider appointing a devil's advocate.

The Devil's Advocate is a popular movie from the 1990s that tells the story of a lawyer hired to argue against a candidate for a high-ranking position in the Vatican. The lawyer's job is to poke holes in the candidate's qualifications and to find any dirt that might disqualify him. While the movie is fictional, the idea of a Devil's Advocate is accurate, and it's something that companies sometimes use when considering new ideas. The aim is to have someone whose job is to argue against the proposed idea, to improve the idea by making sure that all potential problems with it are discussed and addressed.

Definition of a Devil's Advocate

The term "Devil's Advocate" comes from the Catholic Church. In canonization, the process of declaring someone a saint, there is a Devil's Advocate (advocatus diaboli) whose job is to argue against the candidate's sainthood. If the Devil's Advocate can't find anything wrong with the candidate, they probably deserve sainthood.

Why Companies Use Devil's Advocates

There are a few reasons companies might use Devil's Advocates.

First, it can help to prevent groupthink. When people work on a project together, they quickly get caught up in thinking that their idea is great and should be implemented immediately. Devil's Advocates can help to forestall this by giving other people a chance to voice their objections and to point out any potential problems with an idea.

Second, it can help to ensure that all the stakeholders are on board with a decision. When considering a new idea, it's essential to get input from all affected by it. The Devil's Advocate can help ensure everyone's concerns are considered before a decision is made.

Third, it can help to ensure that a decision is well-reasoned and thought out. When you're considering a new idea, it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of it and start thinking about all of the ways that it could be successful. But it's also important to consider all of the ways that it could fail. The Devil's Advocate can help to make sure that you're thinking about both the potential positives and negatives of a decision before you make it.

The Drawbacks

There are a few potential drawbacks to using Devil's Advocates, as well.

First, it can lead to decision paralysis. If you're considering a new idea and you have someone whose job it is to shoot it down, it's easy to get caught up in all the potential problems and never actually decide to go forward or kill it.

Second, it can frustrate the people who are working on the project. If you're constantly being shot down by someone whose job it is to find fault with your ideas, it can start feeling like your work is never good enough.

Third, it can lead to a negative work environment. If people feel like they can't share their ideas without being shot down, they may stop sharing them altogether. This can lead to a work environment where people are afraid to take risks and where new ideas never get a chance to be heard.

Overall, there are both positive and negative aspects to using Devil's Advocates. It's important to weigh the pros and cons carefully before deciding whether to use them on a project.

How To Properly Use a Devil's Advocate

If you decide to use a Devil's Advocate on a project, there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

First, it's important to make sure that everyone understands the role of the Devil's Advocate. The person identified as playing this role should not be trying to kill the idea outright; their goal should be to make sure that all the potential problems with it are considered.

Second, it's important to give the Devil's Advocate enough time to do their job. If you're considering a new idea, you shouldn't just shoot it down as soon as someone objects. Take the time to consider all the objections and to see if any valid points need to be addressed.

Third, it's important to make sure that the decision-makers are the ones who ultimately decide. The Devil's Advocate can provide valuable input, but they shouldn't be the ones making the final decision. That should be left to the people who are responsible for implementing the idea.

Devil's Advocate as A Passive Aggressive Response

When someone starts a statement with "I'm just playing Devil's Advocate," it is usually a sign that they are about to say something which they know is going to be controversial. It's a way of trying to distance themselves from the idea in a passive-aggressive way. The problem with this approach is that it rarely leads to productive discussion. The individual will raise objections to an idea but instead of providing constructive criticism, they will nitpick and try to find fault with everything. The effect is to shut down the conversation because people feel like they are being attacked. It can also make the person who is playing Devil's Advocate look like they are just trying to be difficult for the sake of it.

If you find yourself in a discussion with someone who is playing Devil's Advocate, remind them the role is a formal one and if they are volunteering for it, they need to play by the rules. If they are just trying to be contrarian, close down the conversation.

10 Rules for the Devil's Advocate

Being the Devil's Advocate can feel like being on a debate team. In debate, you are given a position and you must argue for it, even if you don't agree with it. The same is true of being a Devil's Advocate; you have to be willing to take on the role and argue for the other side, even if you don't agree with it.

Here are ten rules that will help you be a better Devil's Advocate:

1. Present an argument against a proposal or idea, without necessarily believing in that argument.
2. Identify and explore potential problems and objections to a proposal or idea to improve it.
3. Provide alternative perspectives and challenge assumptions.
4. Force people to think about an issue from all sides and consider all options.
5. Encourage critical thinking and healthy debate.
6. Ensure that all ideas are given a fair hearing before a decision is made.
7. Act as a check against groupthink, where people go along with the majority opinion without question.
8. Be open-minded and objective, without being wedded to any particular position.
9. See both sides of an argument and understand different points of view.
10. Be willing to change their position if the evidence or arguments presented are compelling enough.

Examples of How Devil Advocates Are Used

Over the years, many organizations have leveraged the idea of a devil's advocate to improve their decision-making processes.

For example, the U.S. military has long used Devil's Advocates to help improve their decision-making. Before a new policy is implemented, they assign someone the role of Devil's Advocate and their job is to find any potential problems with the policy. This helps to ensure that they consider the potential risks before they decide.

Another example of an industry that uses devil advocates is journalism. They are used to making sure that they consider all sides of a story before it is published. This helps to ensure accuracy and avoid any potential libel issues.

The legal profession also uses devil advocates. Lawyers will use them to consider all the potential arguments that could be made against their case. This helps to ensure that they are prepared for anything that could happen in court.

Final Thoughts

Just as a church provides a place for people to come together to learn, discuss, debate, and think, so too does the Devil's Advocate provide a space to discuss, debate, and critically think about an idea. The Devil's Advocate can help improve the efforts of an organization by ensuring that all options are considered before any decisions are made.

Here is the last interview from my time at the Cable Tec-Expo Show in Philadelphia. Collin Howlett, the CTO of Vecima, joins us to discuss the acceleration of innovation in the cable industry.

Collin Howlett of Vecima on the Pace and Sources of Innovation

Predicting the future grows more challenging as the pace of innovation accelerates. Customers are deploying innovations at faster speeds than ever. Most cable operators are now mobile operators, with their focus fixed on fiber. At CableLabs, we are showing coherent optics at 50,000 gigs over a single strand. While this mind-blowing capacity may not be needed now, it will no doubt be needed in the future.

Hardware to Software

With the pace of the broadband industry increasing, necessary transitions are occurring. As the network transitions from hardware to software, engineers must develop a different skill set. This is leading to a shortage of people who understand both software and hardware. Collin emphasized the importance of knowing where to put certain parts of the technology while understanding the software and hardware division.

Some hardware has been out there for 30 years, and the companies that created it are now gone. Its valuable to build hardware that is generic and can be developed over time. It’s vital to build software from a modular perspective.

Many of the technologies deployed today will greatly affect our predecessors. We must think about the unintended consequences of our innovations. Collin believes organizations must think of their innovation’s effects at least 10-15 years into the future.

Innovation Culture

Collin’s team at Vecima likes to follow what’s happening in other industries and identify what they can take from those industries and apply to their own. Due to the pace of innovation, concepts and prototypes need to be spun out a lot faster than in the past. Decisions need to be made quickly. Collin said it is also important not to get emotionally tied to what you are working on. Being able to quickly pivot to the next innovation is vital.

Automation and AI

Many brilliant engineers of our day are retiring, and the question becomes, “How do you capture that expertise?” Collin believes there is value in automating the development of technologies, and low-level work through machine learning and AI. While we can capture everything, this could be a way to help bridge the skills gap going forward. The bottom line is, if innovators are not applying machine learning today, they will be left behind.

About our Guest: Collin Howlett

Colin Howlett is the Chief Technology Officer, joining Vecima in 1997. He is responsible for defining the overall technology strategy at Vecima and leads a group of product architects who work directly with customers to define the next generation of Vecima products. Colin has been an active participant in industry standards development within CableLabs and the WiMAX Forum and is currently actively involved in D3.1 and D4.40 initiatives at CableLabs. He holds multiple patents related to his work in cable broadband access systems at Vecima. Colin holds a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree and a Bachelor of Computer Science degree from the University of Saskatchewan.

A few weeks back, I wrote an opinion piece for The Innovators Network titled, Innovation Hero Worship: FTX, Theranos, and the Media. The core of the article is my belief that the media has a responsibility to not feed into the hero worship of innovation leaders. But there is more to the recent high-profile innovation failures than just the hero worship of founders and CEOs. The announcement of the bankruptcy of FTX and the sentencing of the founder and CEO of Theranos to over 11 years in jail for fraud begs us to look more deeply at the underlying issue of irresponsible innovation.

What do I mean by irresponsible innovation?

The definition is a bit nebulous and open to interpretation, but generally, it is an innovation that is done with little or no concern for the potential negative consequences of the innovation. In a recent study, most leaders and informed citizens believe that the potential negative impact of an innovation is not something that is ever considered. In their minds, most innovation is irresponsible innovation.

There are 5 key contributors to irresponsible innovation:

First, there is a failure to consider and improve upon the consequences of an innovation.

With innovation, it's important to consider all aspects of the consequences. This includes the positive and negative effects that innovation will have on society. By failing to consider and improve upon the consequences of an innovation, businesses and governments can inadvertently cause more harm than good.

Second, there is a lack of accountability and responsibility in the innovation process. Businesses and governments must be accountable for their actions. This means that they must be willing to take responsibility for the negative impacts their innovations may have on society. Without this level of accountability and responsibility, businesses and governments are failing to act in a socially responsible manner. This accountability also needs to include the executives involved.

Third, ethical standards are absent when it comes to innovation. Ethics are important in any field, but it is quickly becoming increasingly important in innovation. Businesses and governments must set ethical standards and adhere to them. Without these standards, there is a risk that innovation will lead to greater negative outcomes.

Fourth, there is often a lack of transparency and communication about the risks and benefits of innovation.

Innovators and entrepreneurs must be transparent and honest about the risks and benefits of their innovations. This includes providing realistic information about how innovation may affect society, as well as any potential solutions for mitigating negative effects.

Fifth, there is often a focus on the financial returns of innovation rather than on balancing its societal impact.

It's important for businesses, governments, and investors (e.g. venture capitalists) to consider the broader societal impact of their innovations. This means that financial returns should not be the sole focus. We should evaluate both the financial return and impact based on the innovations' potential to improve or harm society.

"Just as a car needs both the accelerator and the brake, responsible innovation requires both pushing boundaries and considering the consequences."

Intentional Versus Accidental

Not all negative effects are intentional. Sometimes, innovation can hurt society as a result of unintended consequences.

Intentional irresponsible innovation happens when companies knowingly take risks and create negative social outcomes. A recent example is Facebook’s conscious decision to prioritize engagement and growth over user privacy.

Accidental irresponsible innovation occurs when companies lack the necessary knowledge or resources to fully consider the consequences of an innovation. Unfortunately, these types of mistakes can lead to serious consequences. A recent example is the Uber driverless car that killed a pedestrian.

Consequences of Irresponsible Innovation

The consequences of irresponsible innovation can be severe and far-reaching. Organizations that fail to consider the potential social impacts of their innovations risk creating serious problems. These could include financial losses, public distrust, and even legal liability.

Financial

Financial losses due to irresponsible innovation are not just limited to shareholders and investors but can also have consequences on the wider economy. For example, when FTX went bankrupt, it hurt the entire market.

Legal and Ethical

We must also consider that irresponsible innovation can have serious legal and ethical implications, as seen in the case of Theranos. In this scenario, both investors and consumers were misled about the efficacy of a product and the company, along with the founder, was found guilty of fraud.

Public Distrust of Innovation

Finally, we must consider that irresponsible innovation can lead to public distrust of innovation. This could mean that people are less likely to embrace new technologies and products, leading to slower economic growth and development.

What Can You Do?

We must all work together to create a framework for responsible innovation that considers the potential consequences of our innovations and work towards creating a better future for everyone.

This will require a firm commitment from all stakeholders to consider the potential consequences of their work. This includes companies, governments, citizens, and the media.

Companies

Companies must be proactive in identifying and mitigating any negative impacts of their innovations. They must also be willing to take responsibility for these impacts, even if they are not directly responsible for them. How?

1. Articulate the goals and values that will guide responsible innovation
2. Educate the entire team on responsible innovation
3. Invest in tools and processes to measure, monitor, and mitigate the risks of irresponsible innovation
4. Gather input from stakeholders to ensure their perspectives are taken into account
5. Identify potential negative effects of the innovation and develop plans to mitigate them
6. Communicate the plans to stakeholders, customers, and citizens with transparency

Governments

Governments must create a framework for responsible innovation that considers the potential societal consequences of new technologies and products. This framework should encourage others to act responsibly and provide guidance on how to do so. How?

1. Make responsible innovation part of government policy
2. Consult stakeholders to ensure their perspectives are taken into account
3. Develop policies and regulations that promote responsible innovation
4. Provide incentives for companies to act responsibly and penalize those who don't
5. Monitor compliance with the framework

Citizens

Citizens must be willing to ask questions about the consequences of innovations and hold all stakeholders accountable for their actions. We must also be open to change, accepting that not all innovations are good and that we need to weigh the costs and benefits of each carefully. How?

1. Ask questions about the expected pacts from an innovation
2. Educate yourself on responsible innovation and be aware of potential negative consequences
3. Advocate for responsible innovation where possible
4. Take part in dialogues with stakeholders to ensure your perspective is considered
5. Support companies, governments, and other stakeholders that are making positive strides toward responsible innovation

Media

And let's not leave out the role of the media. The press needs to provide accurate, objective reporting on the consequences and impacts of innovations. This is essential for informing citizens and holding companies and governments accountable. How?

1. Provide accurate, objective, and completereporting on innovations
2. Investigate potential negative impacts of new technologies and products
3. Highlight companies or governments that are making positive strides toward responsible innovation
4. Ask questions to ensure all stakeholders are taking responsibility for the consequences of their work
5. Give a voice to citizens who are being affected by irresponsible innovation

Examples of Irresponsible Innovations

Here are some recent examples of high-profile failures from irresponsible innovations and the lessons learned from each.

• Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica data scandal: This incident highlighted the importance of data privacy and security, as well as the need for companies to be transparent about how they use customer data.
• Volkswagen’s emissions-cheating scandal: This case showed how important it is for governments to have strong policies and regulations in place to ensure companies are following the law.
• Uber’s surge pricing during disasters: This incident showed the need for companies to be aware of their social responsibility when setting prices, and to consider their impact on citizens who are already in vulnerable circumstances.

Conclusion

Irresponsible innovation can have serious consequences. It's important to take steps toward creating a more responsible system of innovation to avoid potential negative outcomes in the future.

Responsible innovation is becoming an essential part of creating a positive future for everyone. If we make sure that businesses and governments take the time to consider the outcomes of their actions, are held accountable for them, and stick to ethical standards when coming up with new ideas, it will be possible to build a more dependable system of innovation.

To put it simply, responsible innovation is about considering the human implications of any innovation advancement and striving to make sure that those implications are understood, communicated, and addressed.

If we want to make a real difference in the world, responsible innovation must be a priority for everyone.