More learning comes from more radical experiments The biggest problem with experimenting in a real-world laboratory was balancing innovation with a need for bottom-line success. Pursuing radical innovations would allow the team to explore entirely new possibilities; an incrementalist approach, however, allowed for improving current banking processes. Successful radical innovations would bring glory to the team. But home runs came at the cost of strikeouts. With its future not ensured, the team could simply not take outrageous chances. Many tests thus ended up validating ideas that were likely to succeed. Team members readily acknowledged such to be the case for host stations Transaction Zone Media and Bank of America Spirit. According to Teri Gann, a former regional executive, Interestingly, and not surprisingly, many of our successes, such as the host station, have been simple and low cost." The biggest impact so far came from Bank of America Spirit-technologically, a nonrevolutionary program transplanted wholesale from Disney. While the original vision called for a 30% failure rate, the actual rate in the first year hovered close to 10%. Butler commented, "We're trying to sell ourselves to the bank. If we have too many failures, we just won't be accepted. Currently, we may have failure within concepts, but not failure in concepts." "We might tweak a process, but everything conforms to the status quo," observed Wells Stanwick, Bank of America manager of channel strategy. "Could we try out a more radical concept such as providing branch offices similar to attorney offices in large office buildings for wealthy customers?" Deborah McAdams, banking center manager, agreed: Let's do something really innovative, such as trying out loan machines similar to automatic teller machines like they do in Japan. When I mention this, some people aren't sure if I am joking." Concepts that appeared intuitively obvious did not always prove so in reality. Such was the case for innovation and for financial payback. Team leaders wondered if a "breakthrough product should be measured through its degree of innovation or through financial payback or both. According to Brady, Our metric should be how an innovation affects the bottom line two years out, rather than looking for instant feedback through customer satisfaction)." Problems with assessing innovation soon surfaced. What might appear radical to one person, for instance a "mobile teller to a technophobe, might prove less radical from a purely technical standpoint.

Nor did the innovation team take financial performance into account, largely because of an anticipated lag of 18 months to 2 years in going from concept to rollout beyond Atlanta. The I&D Market, instead, would settle on the proxy measure of consumer satisfaction. Many team members recognized the shortcomings of their measurement process. Gann stated, I believe we're doing the wrong thing by measuring the I&D Market staff on productivity, not innovation. But, she added, "You can't chase two rabbits at the same time." Some team members pointed to WAMU as a possible benchmark, for it was a competitor willing to change and willing to raise the bar." 1. Should Bank of America try out a more radical concept such as providing branch offices similar to attorney offices in large office buildings for wealthy customers? Why or why not?