Tuesday, 28 February 2017

Want perfectly simple products and services? Ditch the Advertising

In "SIMPLE" by Siegel and Gale's Alan Siegel and Irene Etzkorn we see the complexity in advertising agency "luxuriousness" - large design fees. Want to debunk it? Simply, Leave out the advertisers. Here's how: 

     1) "encountering focus group consumers who expressed a clear preference for food products with fewer ingredients" ----> no, consumers want amazingly well made products cheap. It's not possible - hence advertising. It's something to deal with. 
     2) " use the term "breakthrough simplicity" to describe an approach to innovation that is rooted in finding new ways to make everything simpler." ---> no, it means accepting complexities cost. 
     3) "the airlines example" no, it means working towards Google's dead simple interfaces (and not knowing anything about the back end)  not following yahoo's example of advertising everything. people want cheap tickets, a snack and no gimmicks. Do that you have a winner. Example: JetBlue & EasyJet
     4) "THE MORE COMPLICATED A PARTICULAR PRODUCT OR SERVICE WITHIN THAT INDUSTRY MAY BE, THE MORE OPPORTUNITIES THERE ARE FOR SIMPLIFICATION." no, the more opportunities to advertise the deficienies and waste money charging for it. Simple products require no advertising. 
     5) "make the right high-quality choices for these customers--and then make sure they understand that what you’re providing is a simple solution " no, stop making things complicated from the start. if you can put it all on one chart (and any company can) then decisions are easy, else, else, it's advertising complicating it. Example, the simple VC rule. "explain it to me like I'm 5"
     6) "
Today, it’s clear that most people--more than 80 percent" no, it's always been this way. when has anyone ever asked for life to be more complicated? never. this is tautological and why? " 72 percent of U.S. consumers want companies to be more transparent" ergo, when has anyone ever wanted the wool pulled over their eyes? Never. 
     7) "An Adweek/Harris Poll noted that three-quarters of Americans have found a commercial on TV confusing. On a more consistent basis, 21 percent often find that commercials lack clarity." no, it's even easier than that - customers don't like being confused or lied to

and finally, "And last and foremost--getting back to what matters most in business--simplicity sells.", yes, as when products put in front of the consumer what is, what can be, what will happen when they use X, and what it will cost it is values and professional services firms can charge for it, else, it's just advertising.


 Share on Linked-In          Email to a friend        Share with a friend on Facebook          Tweet on Twitter           Share on Google+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Designers Gather & Organize. Founders Hunt & Retrieve. Want both? Use 3D Soup. Here's how:

Wired Magazine knows founders & now designers but why so few - design founders? Designers Gather & Organize. Founders Hunt & Retrieve. Want both? Use 3D Soup. Here's how:

First let's be clear: Technologists are designers who gather, organize & clarifying visions, confined to a specific domain and via tools turn it into product - vegetables to soups with knives and a stove. Classically designers are not engineers or technologists because software designers don't cook as sketching screens and interactions minus "back of the house" is still just a well written kitchen order - cooks prepare the dish.

Technologists as founders are bankable: months of soup trials before an amazing dish is ready to sell. Founders who hunt and retrieve, sketch back of the napkin and pre-sell possibilities of what they have uncovered hunting have also not made soup. What's the tipping point? Speed to soup and founders who cook quickly understand ROI interest. Now this is the norm for 21st century designers - ROI based mentalities focusing on generating not a supply of ideas but hot soup in the bowl. Why? 3D Soup.

Enter crowsourcing and crowdfunding and a visual demand for finalized product via prototyping. How? 3D Printing. Sketching comes out as fast as code once did. Paper to code to prototype is shifted and "designers" become engineers, technologists and founders or so says the recent article "Why aren't there more design founders" however what is more important is "How to make Hardware Startups More than just a Fad" so here's the concatenation:

1) Problem-solving: slick designs without manufacturing capabilities don't cut it. See the amazing example of the Element Tables Tokujin Yoshioka as it clearly looks like it does not work yet is on sale today.
2) Design is process: engineers iterate based on rules of engineering, definitive can and can't work models where as design is the act of trying many many routes to define 1st uniqueness and then build it as simply, there is no math to fashion but there are a million different cars that have been mass produced
3) Design is a Service Industry: there are only a few ways to make a nuclear reactor as the technology is highly specific, however there are a million ways to engineer earphones (engineering thinking) however if designed well, (design thinking) they will always be in high demand, eg., Beats headphones
4) Founders Lead: because they are always hunting & that means they can't cook at the same time. A designer and sketches and leads is not the same designer who does 3D and prototypes hence two words for Founders and Technologists vs. one word for designers.
5) Design only trumps engineering when the engineering is actually done: if you don't start with design, aesthetics, interaction, etc., you can't build it in later however if you start with it and can't complete it, it is useless - full chicken and the egg issue.
6) MVP just does not cut it with physical goods: Software allows you to start, and iterate versions as fast as you can code and bug test and physical goods don't work this way until the day 3D printers are as fast as injection molding machines so "With hardware, you can’t get away with a minimum viable product that sucks." as Marc Barros states

 Share on Linked-In          Email to a friend        Share with a friend on Facebook          Tweet on Twitter           Share on Google+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tuesday, 14 February 2017

What Does Entrepreneurial Creativity Have to do with Innovation? Everything.

What does Creativity & Entrepreneurship have to do with each other? Just about everything. But now what? 

We all know that creativity for creativity sake is the same as singing in the shower. But what then does creativity and entrepreneurship have to do with one another and how can this and how has this effected large scale multinationals? In An Exploratory Study of Entrepreneurial Creativity we see the basis of how an Intrapreneur with wide eyes to possible opportunities for self expression and idea visibility plus self-efficacy and expertise have significant direct effects on entrepreneurial creativity and significant indirect effects through increasing intrinsic motivation clarifying of the relationship between the individual and resource-related factors and entrepreneurial creativity. When creativity is channeled specifically towards individual attention and output even in the face of resource constraints, success emerges. Innovation breakthroughs happen!

 Share on Linked-In          Email to a friend        Share with a friend on Facebook          Tweet on Twitter           Share on Google+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Monday, 6 February 2017

R&D&D How Great Ideas Become Game Changers

What is the capacity of innovators in 2016? What is the capability of R&D&Design influence in the future? How does this empower designers to create game changing environments? Here’s how.

In Understanding influences on engineering creativity and innovation: a biographical study of 12 outstanding engineering designers and innovators the basis of personality types, design mentalities, efficacy capabilities and more, management mentalities are explored and detailed to understand the value that design plays in the R&D mind. 

Via key factors such as environment, knowledge, attitude and insight, the associated values connected to moving from one illuminated state to another while in complete darkness are explored. What becomes apparent is how the systems to support such breakthroughs are not entirely complex, however it is the environmental queues that design innovators use via rapid series of iterations allowing interests by key users who work in tandem with R&D and Design to bring game changing possibilities to market.  


 Share on Linked-In        Email to a friend        Share with a friend on Facebook        Tweet on Twitter

#iGNITIATE #Design #DesignThinking #DesignInnovation #IndustrialDesign #iGNITEconvergence #iGNITEprogram #DesignLeadership #LawrenceLivermoreNationalLabs #NSF #USNavy #EcoleDesPonts  #Topiade #LouisVuitton #WorldRetailCongress #REUTPALA #WorldRetailCongress #OM #Fujitsu #Sharing #Swarovski #321-Contact #Bausch&Lomb #M.ONDE #SunStar