Design Innovation Isn't Just Balls

Often we are asked, "what is design innovation" and naturally the answer is juggling a bowling ball, a pink pong ball on fire and a chainsaw that is on. This is a very visceral answer to a challenging question which cannot be possibly described in any other way, without of course pulling out a pencil and bar napkin. More, the nature of design innovation has it's roots quite deep in that of "commercialization" and not just invention - THE key component to deign success.

Detailed here are some of the basic notions and of course capabilities of the design innovation process which all need careful juggled for true market breakthroughs. Another example is that of iGNITIATE's ShaRing system - a past success and design possibility for fun and interaction between those coming in contact with each other.

Power Pylon Design - The New Landscape of Britain?

How can design transform a country(side) in one motion? Bringing aesthetics as well as functional benefit to a truly worn out design but not necessarily a worn out function? Yes. The new Power Pylon design competition in Britain shows just that value.

A competition put on by the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Department of Energy shows just what can be done to move forward, utilize basic materials and make a substantial impact on the way design can transform a country(side)

Design Disruption shouldn't ignore Business Model Disruption

Design disruption is often a function of form, sometimes function and a lot of luck, but business model disruption has a much larger focus on full marketplace shift - if leaders are focused on it. In "Business Model Design: (a) Disruption Case Study" we see quite a few examples of how leaders can take on this challenge and embrace competitive advantage for their firms.

iGNITIATE goes live on TwitterFeed

Join us on Twitter  https://twitter.com/ignitiate

the 10 steps of innovaton failure

Previous research into why innovation fails shows us the necessity to not focus directly on outcomes which is the domain of NPD but the general capability to generate and quantify the creation of "innovations" that break molds for next steps in the NPD to take place.

Top 10 examples of innovation blocks and their related NPD difficulties:
1) IF YOU DON'T TRACK YOU LOOSE: Innovations are not accidental and ignoring tracking is a recipie for disaster just like ignoring the necessity for group calendars and centralized project management tracking. Buy or develop an idea management system and there are many in the marketplace at this time.
2) REMOVE FEAR: Remove fear surrounding "the new" because Innovation itself is disruptive and that has the possibility to fail. Even changing packaging causes upheval but is necessary. Is a new packaging project innovation? it all depends. If people fear failing, innovation will not take place.
3) PART OF PERFORMANCE CHECKS: Without innovation being specifically part of the performance review system it will not take place and this is NOT something that can be done across the whole organization. Can any person on the shop floor, board room or cafeteria be an innovator? Yes. Should their salary and career performance be based on this? No.
4) AN ARTICULATED INNOVATION ENVIRONMENT: A specific and clearly articulated innovation process is what creates new possibilities for increased revenue and operating efficiencies. Do not let it take over with too many steps, phasegates, etc., as that is NPD. Making sure everyone understands this as well as his or her role in the process is absolutely necessary.
5) ALIGNMENT: If innovation is not carefully aligned with corporate strategy it is useless even IF that means that certain groups get preferential "innovation" treatment such as R&D groups being able to be freer in their experimentation, etc.
6) IGNORING THE ENVIRONMENT EQUALS FAILURE: Ignoring situational awareness and not supporting people to to scan the environment for new trends, technologies and changes in customer mindsets is the key to NPD failure, but not necessarily innovation failure. Understanding and creating a working environment of identifying and working towards goals past a 1-2yr window is the key to NPD success. Being aware of 3-5yr windows is innovation success
7) BEING RIGID STIFLES INNOVATION: When an organization, process, NPD or Innovation organization is too ridgid innovation is surely to fail and in many cases NPD will even fail. Build in organizational looseness so everyone is free to explore new possibilities and collaborate with others inside and outside the organization.
8) DON'T IGNORE THE OUTLIERS (10-80-10): Ignoring 10,80,10 is a sure fire way to kill "innovation" or more aptly NPD. 10% of ideas just won't make it. 80% will and these are easily in the NPD cycle, where as 10% the true outliers the ones no one will risk are exactly the ones that might transform an entire organization. Without a process for handling the outlier ideas that don't fit the strategy organizations let competitors win.
9) FOCUSED IDEATION IS NPD NOT INNOVATION: Attempting to focus ideation is NPD, overly restrictive criteria for NPD stifles ideation and perpetuate assumptions and mindsets from the past. Ignoring the need to fully break and rebuild models and assumptions of what "should be" is the basis for innovation. Clearly locking down market and success-related parameters is NPD thinking which is valuable for product line elongation but not innovation.
10) NOT EVERYONE IS AN INNOVATOR: Accepting that not everyone can be at the center of the Innovation cycle. NPD teams are project teams and need different tools and different mindsets from innovation teams who are on the edge and therefore taking much more of a risk when it comes to bringing innovations to market. Provide necessary training and coaching for innovation teams to transition to NPD teams is key.

Jawbone UP, UP and away innovation?

Recently the Jawbone UP has been released and among a flash of controversy the general review is the same, no Bluetooth causes it's demise. Fast Company Design says yes. But does it? No.

What typical innovation but more specifically NPD experts know is that version 1 is seldom "the breaker." Now what is important is that "breaking" is the key to innovation as described by Schumpeter who is the originator of the word and the specifier. Did iTunes break the model of music distribution? Yes. Is Jawbone's UP breaking the model of sleep management and training? No. Therefore there is no other way than to wait for version 2 to determine UP's validity and efficacy.

As early as 2006 previous research with Fujistu the OM system was developed to address the same problems and that of e-health. The result, a fully integrated system for the “gaming” of heath and monitoring, but far too ahead of the marketplace.

Does this mean UP is a failure? Hardly. Looking at the competitors there is little cause for alarm and certainly UP v1 will not be the last we see of the product. The big question is, can they crack the Bluetooth issue? Should they NEED to? No there are better interface solutions. Will the public accept that? Here is the question to be answered.

design R&D means whole new classes of ROI

Often it is the simplest of design queues that can transform an entire category of objects and object interaction. Take for instance the square slide model, which can be seen on the new class of windows phones as well as PULSE the rss news reader developed by alphonso labs and 1st debuted by Steve Jobs for the iPad2 launch.

Originally "designed" possibly as early as 2000 w/Fukawasa's info bar phone which is now in the MOMA collection uses a particular design aesthetic which now drives a newer version of the phone and which dovetails into the slide interface model which has been patented, licensed and of course now protects a substantial ROI for the companies involved in the commercialization of the design.

The complete article here has an excellent video in Japanese of the InfoBar phone and the UI interface along with the original designs and background. Summary: Design &D leads to proper ROI when combined with IP protection steps and a continuing commitment to new product development rollout.

Good Design = Good Business

So what does good design do for business? Does it increase sales? Develop awareness? Build Loyalty? Or more importantly, create permanent memories in the minds of those who use the designs a company produced to the point where that company's products become synonymous with "good"

With the work of the TLS system, an new design and manufacturing capability was investigated, a new design direction determined and sales and marketing was brought into the fold to determine if a completely new product could be launched.

In the Article "Good Design = Good Business" details of how, when and why this is the case, but simplification isn't enough and Thomas Lockwood, quite the industry luminary gives a decent review of why. The comments generated however, far outstrip the articles initial intent giving an excellent review of alternative models for "good" and of course "bad" design.

a 50M investment for a "beautiful" US designed thermostat?

Revolution is not a rare thing in a US startup. Change the rules. "Innovation." ALL of these philosophies are vocabularies that firm speaks of in the new millenium. But not design. And certainly not from day 1. Unless of course you have been indoctrinated at the US's pinnacle firm: Apple.

Nest Labs new Thermostat, yes a thermostat is doing just this. And with a $50M investment they are definatley not just sketching warm and fuzzy duvets. Designed by the same lead designers of the iPAD and iPOD there is no doubt in the end products beauty and functionality. Even the website is spectacular in it's simplicity and beauty.

How did they do it? Pure European design philosophy - the American's are truly catching on. “I want it to be a jewel on the wall so that it’s a conversation piece. People come over and they go, ‘What’s that on your wall?’ and you go, ‘Oh, you’ve got to check this out.’ If it can invite conversation, we think we’re going to be able to drive awareness. We’re going to drive more interest, and people will actually save energy.” And so it is.

                                

View All Of iGNITIATE's Design, iNNOVATION and iNSIGHTS here

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

Design requires breakthroughs, Longevity requires cults!

We're often asked, if design is so important what stops design itself from being corrupted? It's simple. Cults. And good design and it is as simple as that.

Take for example the work of Bang & Olufsen and it's consistent commitment to design not only from aesthetics but in their focus to create a following of loyal users and buyers who have no issue with the prices due to the longevity of the items themselves - the whole point to ownership. In the Can the Cult of Bang & Olufsen Last? in Wired magazine, Rob Walker identifies and details the value and desire of consumers for B&O products - for the brand. What is forgotten is why. Because good design creates identity and identity creates memory, "That CD player looks like something from Buck Rogers’ bachelor pad in New Chicago. In fact, for much of B&O’s 86-year history, a common compliment — and complaint — has been how much its products resemble props in sci-fi films." and therefore instant value has been established.

MAKE IT HAPPEN! - Entrepreneurship & Intrapreneurship - Innovation from Within

Today we deliver a presentations called "MAKE IT HAPPEN! - Launching the "New" as Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs" at London's newest 50M funded Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) award winning design school Ravensbourne located at the hub of the 2012 Olympics.

Some helpful "Tools of Preparation" links for MAKE IT HAPPEN! are:

1) AVC.com and specifically the incredible Moneyball for Startups discuss on "....when a great entrepreneur walks into our door, we will recognize him or her..."

2) The rules of the game and avoiding the pitfalls of startup failures The Startup Genome Project Report

3) How to protect what isn't even yours yet - HBS case study: X-IT v.s Kidde final settlement details

4) And simply knowing, "Do you have what it takes?" The Innovators DNA

5) As shown by the master Sharon Wright on Dragons Den

We're sure it's going to be a lively discussion as startup groups are never a boring set of moments!

Full innovation: Pull=Align, Push=Create

Recently an article in Harvard Business review titled, "Aligning with the Consumer Decision Journey" discussed the value of "the loyalty loop" and it's value to the firms core ethos. Oddly however this is only 1 of two or more basic models. In short it is the corner stone of the quite valuable factor of: "the customer is always right" an adage that creates incredible loyalty in its own right. The question however is what value is asking groups who are primarily basing the understanding of "new" as an extension of the old. Aligning then is a pull strategy.

Alternatively, and quite rightly so, a push model, suggests the "eat what you are given" model which often delivers greater "newness" but also at the expense and responsibility of the delivering organization to continue to innovate from within. Aligning with the consumer can then become another mechanism for tired design and complacency. The difference is in the listening.

Aligning with the consumer can be viewed as a mechanism for outsourcing "newness" to the group - that the social consensus holds more collective vision than a core team of specialized creators - the European model. Oddly, from within the design world: aesthetics, visual direction, and even in many cases functionality, specialized creators vastly push father than collective alignment.

Simply the innovation cycle comes from listening , aligning, pulling, but 1st from creating, pushing and researching, requiring development, investment and careful deployment. Social media is not the answer, but primarily a listening step in the direction of true breakthroughs=innovation via researching, development and ultimately creation and deployment.

"design" innovation in 7 laws?

A recent Fast Company Article provided an overview of Phil Mckinley's 7 laws of Innovation

where his breakdown occured including Phil's "Rule of 18" - the typical investment cycle for "innovation" inside a firm. Oddly, and yet again, business marketing and design vocabulary become mangled.

What Phil is actually speaking about is product development and at best NPD or New Product Development cycles. In his podcast "Measuring Innovation" his metrics, models and philosophy are right from MBA and design textbooks on how to launch products. More Phil goes on to say, "metrics ... made clear during the recent earnings call were surrounding sales figures, short-term milestones that the TouchPad did not hit. The one simple metric determined an entire program's success (or failure, in this instance)." which oddly ignored all together the patent, legal and corporate ramifications leaving us to ask, now is "INNOVATION" the scapegoat.

 

Design, Engineering, R&D, and New Product Development are all portions of AN innovation which is still defined correctly by Joseph Shumpter and recently refined by Clay Christensens's disruptive innovation models focusing on the phrase "creative disruption", which certainly we cannot see HP's tablet as being. The iPAD yes. The HP tablet no - regardless of corporate marketing.