VOLUME 5, NUMBER 6

Reflections
The SoL Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
FEATURE ARTICLE

A Platform for Innovation
Dr. Frank Douglas

Commentary
C. Otto Scharmer

Commentary
Anthony Reese

Published by The Society for Organizational Learning

ISSN 1524-1734!reflections.solonline.org

FEATURE

A Platform for Innovation
By Dr. Frank Douglas

How can managers encourage innovation in theimpulse to mandate the structures and outcomes

midst of change and uncertainty? Frank Douglas,of the organization. Through years of research anda senior executive at the multinational pharmaceu-

managerial experience, and through several

tical company Aventis, has found solutions to thischanges of corporate ownership, Douglas has

managerial question in drug research and develop-

advanced the practice of innovation, technicallyment, where the discipline of innovation is a way ofand organizationally. Here he describes hislife. Through direct observation and experimenta-

approach to building “hubs” for change within ation, says Douglas, managers can temper thecomplex global organization.1

ven in a company that trades in the development of new ideas, executives cannot
compel innovative thinking. In my experience, traditional management practices –reporting structures, goals, and incentives – do little to support most knowledge work.
However, as a young medical researcher, I learned that there were three things you must do
to advance learning. You observe. You develop hypotheses. And you experiment. That’s
what I do as a manager. I spend a lot of time observing; then I develop a theory and design
some experiments, which I implement and from which I learn.
That empirical approach to management sometimes frustrates colleagues who’d like tosee, all laid out, a plan that predicts how a program will unfold. I tell them, “If I knew that,
we would not be having this discussion. But what I do know, based on what I observe, is adirection we need to take.” I set up some transparent criteria that help me determine whether
we’re going in the right direction. Everyone can participate in evaluating whether what we’retrying to do makes sense or not. We all learn from that and keep building the road forward.
But I do not start off with a complete picture of how every stretch of that road should bebuilt – I discover that as we go.

E
Dr. Frank Douglas

A Team Becomes a Hub for Innovation
When I joined Ciba-Geigy in 1984, I led an eight-person group that eventually grew to
40 members and became a hub for cross-disciplinary thinking. Our group, which wasrooted in clinical biology, became a place to which the discovery people, the toxicologists
and pathologists, as well as the development colleagues, came for advice. Suddenly, thegroup that I led was being sought after by all parts of the organization. Each of the senior
members of the group had both lab and clinical research experience. Each was focused on
testing preclinical findings in target clinical groups – what we then called “human models of
disease.” And, perhaps most important, each was able to collaborate broadly. All of thesereflections.solonline.org

Dr. Frank Douglas ! A Platform for Innovation 1© 2004, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

— Paul M. Cohen, Senior Editorelements, together, allowed them to translate preclinical findings into clinical research for theorganization.
Later on, thanks to Max Wilhelm, the late head of global research and development (R & D),
I discovered I had certain strengths I was unaware of at the time. In a poignant meeting about
three weeks before he died, he told me, “You know, when we asked you to take over as headof Research in the U.S. in 1988, it was clear to us you didn’t want to do it. You kept insisting
you were a lab guy. But there was something that we recognized in you, which clearly you
didn’t recognize in yourself. And that is, you are able to think in systems – and that’s unusual
even for many scientists.” He also thought I had a knack for seeing theclinical potential of compounds early in the development process, andfor spotting individuals who have the capacity to grow and think differently when given the opportunity. As it turns out, I think Max wasright. I cannot explain the gifts he observed, but most of them comefrom observation. I listen to and observe people and their work. Becauseof that, Max felt I would be a better manager than I would be a lab
scientist.
As a manager I have really done only the three things that Max
talked about. First, I think in systems. The establishment of Chemical
Biology Knowledge Platforms, an interdisciplinary, dispersed scientificcommunity within a highly structured company, is a recent example ofthis. Second, I try to get a sense of whether a compound will work in the clinic. And third, I
find a way to get people to work together around an idea. Those things sound largely intuitive, but all of them, and building collaborative work forms, in particular, can be refined
through observation.
One of my first experiments in innovative practice was a series of three-day workshops I
designed with help from the Center for Creative Leadership. To each workshop I invitedabout 30 people – everyone who touched a project, including secretaries and technicians,
which was unheard of at that time. On the first evening, we started off in a large room, withthe arriving participants being greeted by the sound of Zubin Mehta conducting “Bolero.”After the participants had taken their seats, we showed a video of interviews with Mehta andthe musicians. What came across was that each musician, although an individual expert,
nonetheless had to be in contact with the other “individual experts” – to sense one anotherand play off of one another – in order to play as a team. It is the job of the conductor to makethat happen.
It was a good metaphor for what people in any creative or technical enterprise need to do.
After we watched the Mehta interviews we asked individuals to pair up and to tell each othersomething about themselves, and then to share with the group what they had learned about
their partners. It was amazing. For example, one woman had walked up and down the Grand
Canyon three times – though to look at her, one would say she hadn’t the physical ability to
do it. We had a man who was a pilot; another young man was a rabbi in his community.
Suddenly, we began to see people not as technicians doing assays, not as scientists working
in particular areas, but as individuals who have capabilities beyond what gets seen in thework setting. The question then became: how do you take the creativity that people demonstrate in their lives and tap into it within the workplace?

How do you takethe creativity thatpeople demonstratein their lives andtap into it within
the workplace?

2 A Platform for Innovation ! Dr. Frank Douglas

Reflections ! Volume 5, Number 6

COURTESY OF JULIAN BULLITT

Take Three Months and Just Observe
Three years later, at the end of 1991, I was asked to work with Max in Basel, Switzerland.
It was difficult to say no, but I did. I’d been offered the position of global head of R & D at
Marion Merrell Dow (MMD). Marion and Merrell Dow had merged one year earlier, and it
was my job to merge those two R & D operations.
Max was disappointed. He felt he had failed by not winning me over to come to Basel.
But it was at Marion that, in a real sense, I came to realize what Max had subsequently
described about my abilities. MMD had been successful in finding compounds, but not indeveloping them. In coming into that situation, I was given a rare opportunity by Fred Lyons,
the CEO. He told me, “You don’t have to start running things right away. Take two to threemonths and just observe.” It was an alien concept, because I’ve always been called in, told
“you’re it” and the next hour, been on the job. I asked Fred, “How will we know when I’mready to take on my responsibilities?” He said, simply, “We’ll know.”
I set about going to meetings and just talking with people. At one key meeting in
Strasbourg, France, I brought together 47 key associates from the research and the development
sides of the merged company (MMD), most of whom previously had never met each other.
Beforehand, I sent them each a questionnaire that included the following simple questions:•

What do you see as the strengths in the company?

•

What do you see as the weaknesses?

•

What do you see as the barriers?

•

If you were in my job, what are the one or two most important things you would do?

•

How would you measure success?

reflections.solonline.org

Dr. Frank Douglas ! A Platform for Innovation 3

Over the course of a week we agreed on an R & D agenda, and everyone committed to making that agenda happen. High on the list was doing something about Seldane, one of thecompany’s key compounds, which was beginning to raise concern because of adverse reactions in some patients. The scientists agreed to identify and develop a new compound, derived
from Seldane. This became the antihistamine Allegra, which in 2002 had worldwide sales ofnearly $2 billion. We went from developing a commercial chemical synthesis to the submission stage in just three years. To do that, we had to change a lot of things in the company;
we had to build the road as we traveled on it.
We used that experience as an example of how to create lasting change – because the best
way to make changes is to tackle something that is extremely important to the company. You
have to put yourself on the line collectively. That allows you to develop a case for action inwhich everyone can see the need to do things differently. Incremental efforts rarely transform an entire
organization.

We went from developing acommercial chemical synthesis
to the submission stage in justthree years. To do that, we had
to change a lot of things in thecompany; we had to build theroad as we traveled on it.

Focus on Contributions

In 1995, Hoechst acquired MMD, and I had anoffer to join a major American pharmaceuticalcompany as head of development. I decided to staywith MMD. We were getting close to the submission of Allegra, but that wasn’t the main reason for
my decision to stay with the new company, Hoechst
Marion Roussel. I also felt a deep sense of continuity with the team we had built. To walk away fromthat didn’t feel right. It was not a moral judgment; it was a belief that we should focus moreon what we contribute and less on what we control.
It is important to me that I am contributing to the organization, to the patients, and to
the scientific community. But I have a larger responsibility to all of the individuals to whom
I can contribute something. During this transition time at MMD, I felt there was more I could
contribute: I felt a responsibility to see things through. The R & D teams that we had built
were becoming a powerful hub in the new organization – a kind of creative, collaborative
field. And once this collaborative field was established, I couldn’t just walk away. The focus
on contribution – what we can offer – links to something greater.

Turning Around a Bad Beginning
In my first meeting at Hoechst I made a big mistake. It was my introduction to about 700
colleagues, and I got up and, of course, began speaking in English. After about 10 minutes,
a block of people stood up and walked out. Many were members of the Workers Council (theshared decision-making body representing labor) who said they were tired of listening topeople who could not speak their language. On the spot, I publicly declared my intention tolearn German. I wasn’t sure how I’d do, but I knew that the result was not as important as
the journey.
To my surprise, I learned the language quickly. At another large meeting later that year I
read my presentation in German. There was an interpreter and I had an earpiece translator
for questions and answers, but it didn’t work. I took it off and then spoke spontaneously in

4 A Platform for Innovation ! Dr. Frank Douglas

Reflections ! Volume 5, Number 6

German. People were astonished – and my effort to communicate in their language boughtme a lot of goodwill. They saw that I was committed, and I think that began to bring people
on board with the changes we were trying to make.
One of the keys to transforming the culture at Hoechst Marion Roussel was creating an
open, transparent project-evaluation process across the three research sites: Frankfurt, Paris,
and Bridgewater, New Jersey. For the first time, an external panel of scientists was brought
in to judge our projects. Nobody had ever questioned the Hoechst scientists about theirscience, and they did not welcome the change. I invited our scientists to sit down with a consultant and design the review process. I asked only that the review process they designed
be robust, and that they prepare documentation to help guide an open, scientific discussion
during the review.
The panel, which our own scientists helped recruit, focused on several key questions, such
as: What’s the mechanism of action? What is the basis of the hypothesis? What’s the statusof the competition? How good are our compounds with respect to various clinical criteria?
What are the clinical data from compounds that had moved into Phase I or Phase II of testing? At the end of the first panel, the facilitator told me, “I cannot believe you sat here forthree and a half days and never stated your own opinion. You just let things run. And somehow or other, you were in control.” I said, “I wasn’t seeking control. The process was open
and transparent; I can live with the results of it.” My view was not as important as the decision made by the body of scientists.
Nevertheless, over the course of those few days, many people resented me. I told thefacilitator, “There’s something about scientists you need to know. They’re very proud people.
At the end of the day, they want to be sure that they can get up in front of their peers anddefend their science.” That was the human part of all of this – their pride about being scientists in front of their peers. This was the reason why I could look beyond their initial resent-

reflections.solonline.org

Dr. Frank Douglas ! A Platform for Innovation 5

ment to my introducing this change:
open scientific review.

When Not to Debate
This experience helped prepare me
for a bigger challenge. In 1998 there
were a lot of problems in the company and great dissatisfaction among
the staff. The head of the Workers
Council, Arnold Weber, organized adebate to which he invited the members of the Workers Council, alongwith Lothar Klemm, the Ministerof Finance for the Hessen region.
Günther Wess, the head of the
Hoechst Frankfurt site, and I were asked to debate a famous, recently retired pharmacologist,
Dr. Ernst Mutschler, who was representing the union. I told Günther beforehand, “We are
not going there to win a debate. In fact, we’re not even going there to have a debate. We aregoing to use the opportunity to explain what we’re trying to achieve. Even if someone says
something that is incorrect, we will not respond. Ten or fifteen minutes later, we may correctit, but without challenging the speaker. Most of the time, just listen.”
The professor and the union officer launched a bitter attack on me and Günther. When themoderator, Christian Schulte, asked for my response, I simply stated what we were trying to
do – in German of course – and then turned to Günther, who continued the conversation
without directly engaging the criticism aimed at us. Near the end of the session, Mr. Webergot up and said, “Okay, Dr. Douglas, I think you have convinced us that we need to work
differently. We need to improve our innovation and productivity. You’ve also convinced usthat we need new skill sets. Is there a way of doing that without reducing the workforce?” I
told him that in the past, faced with similar situations, I had offered to pay the salaries ofscientists who went back to university for two years to learn new skills, and then re-employ
them. The only requirement was that in their new areas, they would have to operate at leastat the level of a new PhD. If our scientists are prepared to do that, I said, we are prepared tosupport them. That was a breakthrough.

Creating a Platform for Change
We began to see the benefits of this approach two years later, in 2000. For example, at thattime we had a total of 250 scientists, at three sites, running 50 projects on different kinase
enzymes. (Kinases are important in transducing information within cells.) I proposed bringing together this community of scientists into a new kind of hub, a chemical biology platform
where biologists, chemists, and other specialists could think together and share knowledge.
Some people thought I had a hidden agenda to change the structure of the company – that I
was trying to do away with the chemistry department, the structural biology department, andso on. But that was not my intent. It was all about mindset, getting people to work together,because organizational change has more to do with mindset than with structure. And the

6 A Platform for Innovation ! Dr. Frank Douglas

Reflections ! Volume 5, Number 6

right organizational form derives from observation, hypothesis, and experimentation, notfrom having a grand plan.
Ultimately we created similar platforms in four different biochemical disciplines. Today,
70% of our projects are supported by one of these four platforms. I’ve found that you haveto get three things right for these platforms to work. First, select the right people. In eachplatform, I look for good scientists with the right expertise. I also want people who areentrepreneurial – who have a tolerance for risk and thecapacity to live with the consequences of their decisions.
And I look for change agents, people who can articulate
new paradigms and convey a sense of urgency.
Second, create visibility and take a personal interest. I
review projects regularly – not to be intrusive but to learn
and stay in touch. I also identify local sponsors of eachplatform. Günther Wess, the Frankfurt site head, sponsored the chemical biology effort, so I actually report tohim with respect to those projects. And when he holds his
meeting, I am just a member of the team.
Third, define the mission of the platform. For us thegoal was clear, tangible, and meaningful: to enable theorganization to find better compounds faster. That’s become our watchword. It has helped
us link the platform to the day-to-day life and fabric of the organization. It’s not just anotherinitiative; it’s the way we do business.
Ultimate success depends on the health of the project team. The project team is the innovation ecosystem, bringing together associates from different global functions at the local
site. The site heads, who are members of the global management team, must make tradeoffs
among sites with respect to which projects to support. Members of the marketing or commercial departments also participate on every project team, providing the external physician
with a patient and market perspective. Project teams also collaborate with academic researchers,
to help them better understand the needs of customers.

We are not going there to
win a debate. In fact, we’re
not even going there tohave a debate. We aregoing to use the opportunity
to explain what we’re trying
to achieve.

Leadership as Collective Art Form
Leadership can be viewed as a collective art form of the present. You create conditions for agroup or system to create collectively. Each episode of innovation is part of a larger journey,
and leadership means waking up to that journey and relating to the mystery at its inner core.
My job has always been to create an environment in which every individual can fulfill his or
her potential. People who come to work, and who spend many hours after work thinking
about their work, deserve an opportunity to make a contribution.
To enable people to contribute, you have to do three things. First, you have to make difficult resource and strategy decisions about what opportunities to pursue. That has to dowith science, technology, and rigorous evaluation. The second thing is creating an environment in which people want to contribute. That is not necessarily a comfortable environment.
It is one that answers for them the questions: Why am I coming to work? What are weachieving here together? And, then, how do we get our work done, individually and collectively, to achieve meaningful results? That’s the “soft” part of leadership, which of course isreally the hard part. Finally, with resources and processes in place to allow people to contrib-

reflections.solonline.org

Dr. Frank Douglas ! A Platform for Innovation 7

Measuring What Matters
Just as in research and development, managers inalmost any discipline must rigorously measure outcomes.
We can measure lots of things, and too often we try tomeasure them all. But what are the meaningful things
to measure? Usually they include soft attributes, likevalues and behavior, which we can measure using
appropriate models (see Figure). And with such models
in place, we begin to sense who is likely to excel andwhat we can do to support them.

FutureLeaders

Values ➤Mavericks

RebelsConformers

Behavior ➤In any organization, what matters most are the valuesof the organization and personal behaviors. With those
two attributes in mind, managers can observe fourkinds of performers:
Rebels don’t share the values of the organizationand can’t behave in ways that make the organization
productive.
Conformers play by the book and put in their eightor nine hours, but don’t really care about the organization’s values. They’re just doing their jobs.
Mavericks share the values and the goals of theorganization, but behave differently, and have theirown ways of doing things.
Future leaders model both the values and the
behaviors essential to organizational success. They
are the true go-to performers.
I look for both mavericks and future leaders. Especially in technical and creative organizations, youoften find mavericks – innovators who don’t want tomanage, but have no other way to advance. Providing
a dual career ladder allows them to be recognized
and compensated for their contributions without
having to fit a managerial profile. In any organization
I run, there is a place for everyone except rebels.
If people don’t share the values and can’t behave
in ways that move the organization forward, theyowe it to themselves to go elsewhere.

ute, you must lead the conversation about how to measure success (see sidebar, “Measuring
What Matters”). The products, the processes, and even the company itself will undergo manychanges. But a deep understanding of our purpose and values must remain clear. In the end,
that is what provides a lasting platform for innovation.
Endnotes
1

This article was based on an in-depth interview with C. Otto Scharmer,
whose comments follow.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Frank L. Douglas is executive vice president and member of the Board of Management of Aventis and has headed research departments for pharmaceutical companies since1984. Douglas studied physical chemistry and medicine at Cornell University, trained inInternal Medicine at Johns Hopkins, held a fellowship at the National Institutes of Health,and directed the Hypertension clinic at the University of Chicago Department of Medicine.
frank.douglas@aventis.com

8 A Platform for Innovation ! Dr. Frank Douglas

Reflections ! Volume 5, Number 6

FCCROOOM
H TE
M
MMM
M EET NN
T AA RR YYA N A G I N G D I R E C T O R

Commentary
By C. Otto Scharmer

Frank Douglas’s story illustrates the practicaland people who are able to live with theessence of leadership. What is that essence? It’s

consequences of their actions.

found in the word itself: leadership derives fromthe Indo-European root word leith, “to go forth,”“to cross the threshold,” or “to die” – that is, toprogress from a world we know to another worldthat we do not yet know.1 In institutions aroundthe world, leaders are increasingly facing
C. Otto Scharmer

challenges that require them to progress from aworld they know to a world they don’t. So what

(3) The power flows from purpose andintention. The more deeply such a core group
crystallizes and clarifies its vision and intent,
the more it radiates a generative field that
attracts other people, partners, and opportunities. Doors that otherwise would haveremained closed, open.2

can we learn from Frank Douglas’s story about(4) Innovation needs “helping infrastruc-

how to operate effectively amidst uncertainty?

tures” to succeed. One example of a helping

Here are the seven key points that I took awayfrom an intriguing two-hour conversation with
Dr. Douglas at the headquarters of Aventis in
Frankfurt, Germany:

infrastructure Douglas created was an external
review panel, which allows researchers to assess
their current work through others’ eyes in orderto speed the learning process. Another example
is the playing of Debussy’s “Bolero,” and(1) To lead means to create a generative field

the presentation of the conductor’s work as aof discovering and innovating across boundaries.

learning infrastructure for important strategy

The key leadership mechanism that Douglas put

and work sessions.

in place during the different episodes of his career
remained the same: he identified, connected,
and gathered key players that he felt had thepotential to take the company into the future.
The resulting group, through its web of connections, could both interact effectively and stay
focused on the task.

(5) The core process of leading innovation
is listening to what wants to emerge andthen creating the context for that future
to manifest itself. Trained as a medical researcher, Douglas was at first hesitant to moveinto management or to take a leadership role.
It took the strong encouragement of a mentor(2) There is nothing so powerful as a corefor him to do that. Once in a leadership posi-group that knows what it wants to create.

tion, Douglas stayed connected to his roots. He

Every great story of innovation is driven by ainterprets his leadership task as a continuous

small, highly committed core group. What arelearning process, and translates his experience

the critical criteria for composing such groups?

as a medical researcher into leadership prac-Frank Douglas’s experience suggests that thetices: first you observe, then you sense (develop)

core should consist of people who have appro-a hypothesis, and then you experiment. This

priate expertise, as well as change agents,

core process of observing, sensing, and actual-reflections.solonline.org

Dr. Frank Douglas
C. Otto! A
Scharmer
Platform forCommentary
Innovation 9

izing future opportunities is critical for bothEndnotes

individual and collective leadership success.

1

Dictionary, Alexander Lubotsky and Robert(6) Change is best initiated with a burning

Beekes, eds. (Bern, The Netherlands:

issue that is central to future survival or
success. The key to starting a large-scalechange initiative lies in picking a burning issue

Pokorny, Julius, Indo-European EtymologicalFrancke, 1959): 672.
2

See also Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer,
Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers,that is critical to the future success or survival

Presence: Human Purpose and the Fieldof the company and focusing all changeof the Future (Cambridge, MA: Societyenergies on this mission-critical project.

for Organizational Learning, 2004).

(7) Each episode of profound innovationand change is part of a larger journey.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Leadership means waking up to the mystery ofthe deeper journey. Stanford’s Michael Ray says

C. Otto Scharmer is a lecturer at the MIT Sloan

that creativity stems from two questions: Who

School of Management and visiting professor

is my self? What is my work? Being able toat the Center for Innovation and Knowledge

answer these two questions allows leaders like

Research, Helsinki School of Economics.

Douglas to operate from a deep place, wherescharmer@mit.edu

innovation ecosystems progress from the statethat we know to an unknown state that wesense wants to emerge.

! Dr. Frank Douglas
10 Commentary
C. Otto Scharmer
A Platform for!Innovation

Reflections ! Volume 5, Number 6

FCCROOOM
H TE
M
MMM
M EET NN
T AA RR YYA N A G I N G D I R E C T O R

Commentary
By Anthony Reese

Anthony Reese

Frank Douglas offers important insights to otherNot coincidently, many companies also get thepractitioners about how to support innovation.

innovation process wrong. Managers tend toThree points, in particular, stand out. First, his use

treat it like a construction project – they esti-of the scientific method – observation, formulation

mate the time and intensity of each task, andof hypotheses, and experimentation – is a usefulattempt to allocate resources and outcomes

and under-appreciated management practice. That

in a predictable way. True innovators take theopen-ended, inquisitive approach is at odds with

opposite approach. Accepting the fact that they

most organizations’ tendency to push for closure

don’t know what they don’t know, they say, inand certainty. But as Douglas recognizes, you can-effect, “Let’s put five people on this for four

not compel innovative thinking; you can only bringmonths and see what happens.” These teams

together the right people and explore opportunities

then continuously learn a little, do little. Thisto create something new. The article offers many

approach to managing uncertainty cuts against

examples of processes and structures for support-

the grain for most companies, but it is essen-

ing shared exploration, and reminds us that thesetial to the strategies that Frank Douglas

processes are sometimes uncomfortable for thedescribes.

people involved, including senior executives.

The third lesson from “A Platform for Innovation”

The second lesson I took from the story is theinvolves the platform itself. Aventis project

importance of measuring values and behaviors,

teams bring together a mix of scientific disci-

not just quantitative outcomes. Such assessment

plines, business functions, and geographic

builds on the manager’s capacity to step back andregions, within dispersed facilities. They mirror,

observe. But Douglas recognizes important differ-in microcosm, the kinds of centralized productences between the two performance measures.

development centers that have helped otherHis “Measuring What Matters” matrix draws a line

companies (including Harley-Davidson) inno-

around the values that define an organization. Those

vate. This more holistic approach forces people

with a future in the organization must share its

across many functions, such as marketing,values. But, Douglas suggests, there can be greater

manufacturing, and purchasing, to engage inlatitude in behavior. Being clear about organiza-

the creative process rather than abdicate respon-tional values provides greater latitude in behavior –sibility to R & D or engineering. At Harley-

the ways that people practice and approach theDavidson, this has led me to the epiphany thatbusiness. Without a diversity of styles and behav-

the discomfort of innovation must be sharediors it is very difficult for organizations to innovate.

widely if the enter-prise is to break new ground.

Unfortunately, many organizations focus almost

Furthermore, there is a “conservation of dis-

exclusively on behavior (seeking conformity) andcomfort” in an organization. People can experi-

fail to develop a sense of shared values.

ence discomfort early on, as they make difficult

reflections.solonline.org

Anthony Reese

Commentary 11

trade-offs in the product-development, or they

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

can experience it later, when a product must be

Anthony Reese is director, engineering plan-

redefined deep in the development process orning, at Harley-Davidson Motor Company. He

fails in the market.

is a member of Founding SoL and a member

Douglas’s story highlights three fundamentalsof the Sustainability Consortium, productapplicable to organizations working to innovate:development conferences, and other groups

using the scientific method, focusing on values

in the SoL community.

and involving the broader organization. Thisanthony.reese@harley-davidson.com

article reminded me that finding ways for people
to share methods, values, and responsibility is
the surest path to ongoing innovation.

12 Commentary ! Anthony Reese

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 6

Reflections
The SoL Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 5, Number 6

Editorial Team
Editors-in-Chief
Karen Ayas and Peter M. Senge
Senior Editor
Paul M. Cohen
Publisher
C. Sherry Immediato

Individual Subscription Options
Receive Reflections as a SoL Connections member:• USD$125 U.S.
• USD$135 International
One year Reflections subscription:• USD$75 U.S.
• USD$85 International
To order online and for a full description of subscription options, see http://reflections.solonline.org
For institutional subscriptions,contact David Mahaffey (see below).

Reflections: The SoL Journal is published 10 times
per year (July through June) in electronic format andonce per year as a hard copy compilation by theSociety for Organizational Learning, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139, USA. Inquiries regarding subscriptions and address changes, back issues, reprints,
and permission requests should be directed to:
ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2004 by the Society for Organizational Learning.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational Learning.
Design & Production: DG Communications (NonprofitDesign.com)
Design Concept: OHO (OHOCreative.com)

reflections.solonline.org

David Mahaffey,
Publications Management Intern
Reflections: The SoL Journal
955 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 201
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA(1)617.300.9515 (phone)(1)617.354.2093 (fax)E-mail: reflections@solonline.org
http://reflections.solonline.org

Dr. Frank Douglas ! A Platform for Innovation 13