5 Innovation Fail's - not to be ignored

Recently we were asked how exactly do you know where a New Product Development efforts fail point and more how can they apply to innovation processes? Naturally this means taking a hard look at "that which might destroy you can make you stronger" via the 5. 

Let's review: 

1) Innovation is episodic - and certainly not something you kill at the 1st sign of missing revenue. R&D does not come over night and New Venture teams do not produce cash flying out of their backside in one quarter

2) Resources are held hostage by incumbent businesses - let those who are in power determine where $$$ is spent on new development and they will always choose their own best interests: an instant innovation killer. 

3) Slamming innovation into the structure that you have - when an organization is not interested in growth by the architecture of the firm itself, trying to "make" innovation happen simply won't. 

4) Too little diversity of thought - when confronted with complex systems, a team with a broader range of potentially relevant experiences tends to do better as no one eye can see all possibilities. 

5) Treating assumptions like knowledge - relying on "managers of innovation" is just as stupid as asking Leonardo da Vinci to group think the Mona Lisa as managers are rewarded for being "right" when the easiest way to be right is to take very few risks and innovation has nothing to do with "few risks" occurs when direct refutable evidence is tested in the real world with real customers/partners/manufacturers/etc. 

The article in HBS online tells even more. 

When design matters - Google buys a design co.: Mike and Maaike

Naturally when the big players move, the market takes notice and taking center stage at Google in the physical design world are the advancements of Project Glass and the recent accquisition of design company Mike and Maaike into the Google fold.

When Leads to

Does this signify any radical shift of design importance in the hi-tech world? No. In the North American Market? Yes. Design-centric studios are at the center of technological direction, consumer value, brand perception, and of course functional development and product acceptance which we all understand as Apple soars to higher and higher levels of consumer demand because of it's aesthetic awareness putting a high value on it's internal design team and how it effects the bottom line. Should Google partner with Gucci? Prada? Hermes? Yes. Is it valuable? How can we measure this? As simple as the number of news, blog, and twitter postings of Google's aquistion of Mike and Maaike as reported in business specific publicatons such as Business insider, Tech News, CNN, C-Net, Fast Company Design, ID Magazine, etc. and naturally as in the design world as well.

design and innovation gone wrong

It's not often that design especially in the European market goes wrong as the connection between design, art and innovation have such a tight link. It is even less often that we comment on this, but in the case of M&S London, it has not been more apparent.

In their recent Shwopping installation profiled here: capability for design is missed, the capability for art is ignored and a media and marketing opportunity is lost. Why? Design is ignored. Construction is minimal and execution is quick and dirty. Only in the photo above where clothes are laid out in a green color combination is there even the slightest indication of possibilities. What could have been? Anything depending on the designer / design team called in.

ROI oriented? Certainly not.

PR possibilities ignored? Certainly so.

A canvas for any number of designers to show M&S's commitment to design: Clearly.

great ideas come in pairs, innovations come in processes? no.

The question is always the same, are "innovations" and better than ideas? only if they make it to market. Is there a formula? Well, in 2004 Leslie Martinich in Commercializing and Managing Innovations suggests there is a correlation and specifically based on capabilities of the internal team. Very natural. But what of the validity of the external design itself? David Lavenda in Why Great Ideas Come In Pairs suggests where there is one there is another. And in this Non-European, non artisan model the question is therefore ignored: Have Western companies still not quantified the mentality of design value?


Oddly CNN got it correct recently when an interviewee was quoted as saying, "It seems that only It is odd for me to represent design thinking and process in the debate when my education and training is as a scientist and MBA. The reason I hang around so many smart designers is that I don't think the old tricks alone will enable the business model innovation and system change we need. We need to borrow from both approaches to pave a new way. It is messy but necessary. Lets bring together the mad scientists and mad designers and see what happens."

The "innovation nation" is finally catching up with the rest of the world. 

design, innovation, commercialization: PARC?

The story has has always been the same: Xerox PARC, the labs where the basic building blocks of the modern day computing devices were born: Ethernet, WSYIWYG editors, laser printing, postscript, Small Talk, e-paper, and so many others, has notoriously been associated with bobbling the ball: failing to innovate. But not any longer. Why?

PARC is a standalone - it survives or dies on the technology  it creates.  How? Focus on the Business Models and the products will follow. A very US centric model, but non-the less, it keeps PARC going. read more....

So you want to be a design powerhouse?

Fast Company, never to be outdone and probably one of THE largest sources for links in our blog seems to keep turning it out: Details and specifics on how leading US firms face design as a strategic tool and keys to becoming a powerhouse in one easy step. Well not just one.

The basics have never been simpler, however the nuances are the devils in the details and more, what most firms underestimate:

- Align goals and strategy.

- Understand the difference between design thinking and design.

- Hiring superstar designers is not the answer.

- Measuring the return on investment for design is a long-term pursuit.

- Great design leadership is important. But great change management is even more important.

- Companies that get the most from design rely on a culture of design.

Naturally the article is completely US centric regardless IF the companies profiled in the Corporate Design Index ship internationally as there isn't one CEO that can deny LVMH and Samsung run rings around many of the firms listed and are not even mentioned in the article. Why? US firms are US design centric where Alessi & RADO know the world is their design canvas. Similar is the forwarding thinking work past projects with Louis Vuitton and the Topiade project.

 

The full article is here.

Lytro - Innovation by definition is Marketing a Breakthrough

More and more the definition of innovation is being mangled by mainstream media and without going into who Schumpeter is and why he basically started it all, sufice it to say, without marketing, branding, and of course design as a primary component, no "invention" would ever make it out to be "innovated" and so is the case with the Lytro.

And the folks at Fast Company once again lock down the basics and some of the details of how this has come to be. See the full article here. Why is this all so important? Simplicity of design, simplicity of use, simplicity of experience and of course due to the full change in "picture taking" usage, the object sells itself and THAT is practically built into the word "innovation" - and Schumpeter would be proud!

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.