Rustbelt Innovation — A Tale (Comparison) of Two Programs

Executive Summary: The GLWA (Detroit) and NEORSD (Cleveland) are two large regional wastewater utilities that face similar challenges (e.g. funding/rates, aging infrastructure, CSOs, employee turnover) and have recently initiated innovation programs to help address these issues. Innovation is critical to current and future operations within their organizations. Both organizations have 'formal' innovation programs, but they are different stages of maturity. This paper (and presentation) will compare the GLWA Innovation Programs and the NEORSD Innovation Program — from inception through launch through current day to day operations. The goal of this paper is to provide some key insights to other water and wastewater utilities that may be considering implementing an innovation program or those that may need to take a 'step back' and look at their current innovation program frameworks. Innovation Programs — 2 Different Utilities - 2 Different Approaches Based on recent Water Research Foundation studies, a vast majority (>90%) of utilities surveyed believe that innovation is critical to their future. Additionally, 70% of the utilities participating in the research have developed formal innovation programs within the last 10 years. The GLWA and NEORSD have formal innovation programs in their organizations — but the journey they have taken has been different and they are at differing stages of maturity and have different approaches to various innovation program components. GLWA Launch — The GLWA 'Innovation Program' launch was initiated to help motivate and retain staff engagement, track ideas related to efficiency and operational improvements, and to help provide an assessment point for reviewing and screening external technologies. The GLWA launch benefitted from already having a successful research program, due to existing relationships and collaborations, but also experienced challenges from those same relationships due to the differences between research (narrow focus on a small subject) and innovation (broad focus on many subjects). GLWA initiated it's innovation program with two primary components: a quarterly workshop which focused on assessing external technologies via a series of vender presentations and developing an internal GLWA idea management software platform. This paper focuses on the idea management aspect of the GLWA innovation program. NEORSD Launch — NEORSD launched their initial Innovation Program framework in 2018 — utilizing a fairly 'informal/voluntary' administrative approach with a 'Big Bang' communication mode (1 organization wide email announcing idea submission form is available). As time passed, it was quickly realized that this approach did not achieve the desired goal of 'develop, encourage and sustain a culture of innovation' with NEORSD. Subsequently, NEORSD changed its approach to innovation program management, dedicating resources and designing a new innovation program framework — with the original program goal continuing to be a driving principle. In February 2020, NEORSD started the evolution of their innovation program framework — with a comprehensive relaunch strategy developed. Many challenges have been encountered and many lessons have been learned on this journey. See Figure 1 for a visual summary of the NEORSD Innovation Program framework - detailing the three primary components - communication, process and administration. Idea Management - 2 Different Approaches Ideas (like water lines, pumps, sewers and manholes and other equipment we use) should be considered as assets — and managed accordingly. Not all ideas will get implemented, and not all implemented ideas will be implemented right away. Sometimes an idea must be postponed, or slowly grown, until the timing is right, and resources are allocated for implementation. A key component of an innovation program is idea management and GLWA and NEORSD have taken different approaches in managing their ideas. GLWA Approach — GLWA approaches idea management as somewhat of a 'free for all' of good ideas and community engagement. However, those ideas must be managed within a structure of submission, commentary, review, and engagement with potential implementers. Idea management must have three specific components: 1) idea tracking, 2) feedback to the ideator, and 3) database of idea submissions, as shown in Figure 2. GLWA chose to implement a third party vendor software provide this structure. NEORSD Approach — The NEORSD idea management approach is less formal and structured when compared to GLWA and it has been recognized as a key area as part the NEORSD innovation program relaunch activities. Ideas that are managed by paper lists/post-its, emails and spreadsheets are not conducive to being able to be accessed, analyzed, reported or managed. A comprehensive idea management approach is being developed at NEORSD in 2021-2022. Steps that NEORSD is taking to develop this approach will be shared in the paper/presentation. Summary — Lessons Learned The GLWA and NEORSD have taken different approaches in their development and administration of their innovation programs. Many challenges and successes have been achieved along the way for both organizations — and there are lessons learned to share with other water and wastewater utilities that may be considering developing or revamping an innovation program. Innovation at a water or wastewater utility are not typically encouraged. The water sector must produce via a series of specific tasks to meet a set of specific requirements. Novelty is not beneficial or necessarily even useful. As a result, when trying to engage and develop your workforce innovation, there are often roadblocks preventing clear discussion, and clear understanding, of what might be gained. As each of us have developed our utility's respective innovation programs, we have encountered different aspects of institutional resistance or indifference. At the same time, we have also encountered various pockets of unexpected creativity. Some of these issues are listed below. 1.Communication differences 2.Rigid thinking versus 'free form' innovation 3.Team engagement and marketing the program 4.Differences of opinions 5.Differences in expectations We summarize our presentation and paper with the discussion of these challenges and some of the remedies we have used to circumvent them.