"we estimate it pans out at less than 30% of the cost of a tradition consultancy engagement around issues of culture and innovation."

Any comparative effectiveness measures?

I wouldn't want to make a claim for that without a few more years experience David, although its a good question. It is at least as effective and therefore cost-effective UNLESS you want a bunch of consultants to come in and tell you what to do in which case its a waste of time....

'one night (my birthday as it happens) will be spent in the dessert' - does that mean you might all be spending the night inside a large cake, possibly your birthday cake? Or will the night be spent in the desert with grubs for grub?

** Response**
Grubs for grub Ian (and dessert pears etc etc), bush tucker. Those of us from the 60's and 70's will build our own shelter and sleep on the dessert floor. The younger post hippie generation will probably end up in air conditioned caravans. There will be no cake ...
Dave

A recent issue of BusinesWeek magazine had a feature article on what they consider to be a new trend of combining business-school education with design schools. There is apparently a serious feeling that design principles, especially those above and beyond the basic engineering design concepts, when combined with more-practical business concepts creates innovative thinking.

I'm not entirely convinced, I'll admit, but the article was certainly interesting and I will say the basic concepts (getting people out of straight market analysis thinking into design, usability, prototyping, etc.) seem reasonable!

I've developed a theory recently to explain human behaviours like procrastination: We do what we must, then we do what's easy, then we do what's fun. The first two of your necessary conditions for innovation (starvation and pressure, or, as I have called them, scarcity and urgency) are consistent, I think with We do (first) what we must.

Your third precondition for innovation (perspective shift) is, I believe, an attribute that some people enjoy entertaining and some people (not entirely the same group) are particularly good at. My experience is that perspective shift is a skill that can be honed, or learned. I think it ties into Then (if we're capable) we do what's fun. Many people are neither skilled nor enamoured of perspective shifting -- they are change resistant. You might be able to make them better at it in the outback of Oz, but my guess is that your attendees will already be innovation champions and change resilient.

My theory as to why most (especially large) organizations are so poor at innovating is that they don't have to innovate to succeed (it is cheaper and less risky to buy out, buy off, scare off or crush innovators that threaten them), and that they do not attract or retain people who are competent and interested in perspective shift -- new ways of looking at problems and challenges. And the economic system is increasingly rigged in their favour. Only what Christensen calls Disruptive Innovations, introduced by stealth, can dislodge them, and when they do, the dinosaur organization doesn't move to adapt in this case either, so by the time it "must" change, it is already too late. Christensen's argument that the dinosaurs can learn Sustaining Innovations to mitigate the risk of being disrupted out of existence is, I think, just wishful thinking (he has to give them some hope or they won't pay his consulting fees or buy his books).

On a larger scale, this same "can't adapt until it's too late" problem presents itself in our inability to deal with global warming and other 'wicked' complex social problems, which is why philosophers like John Gray have pretty well given up on our civilization and our culture.

Your program sounds as if you don't share this pessimism and believe that there is some way to create a sense of urgency before it emerges 'naturally', and then to compel those who have neither the skill nor the propensity to shift perspectives to do so. I think that's a Sisyphusian challenge.