> but it doesn't really say how to do this or go into detail about what this might look like.
I think that's because for each organization that is likely going to be different. It may be enough to simply push to product that "Hey, we need to also spend time on new innovations, not just day to day feature grinds" and lay out plans to get those greenfield innovations prioritized and deployed.
It may be the case that the innovation is around infrastructure "Hey, we are deploying to Ubuntu 14.04 VMs with an inflexable infrastructure. Perhaps we need to start working towards something more modern and flexable?" That will look very different from just giving PM time for innovation and may stop development from making meaningful innovations.
The point of the article, I think, is to provide a path and light on innovation and not leave it to some dark development corners where innovation is a "don't ask don't tell" sort of scenario.
I think that's because for each organization that is likely going to be different. It may be enough to simply push to product that "Hey, we need to also spend time on new innovations, not just day to day feature grinds" and lay out plans to get those greenfield innovations prioritized and deployed.
It may be the case that the innovation is around infrastructure "Hey, we are deploying to Ubuntu 14.04 VMs with an inflexable infrastructure. Perhaps we need to start working towards something more modern and flexable?" That will look very different from just giving PM time for innovation and may stop development from making meaningful innovations.
The point of the article, I think, is to provide a path and light on innovation and not leave it to some dark development corners where innovation is a "don't ask don't tell" sort of scenario.