The 4 steps: Tech Disruption (BitCoin) vs. Design Disruption (Herman Miler's 2011 $1.6B rev)

Technologists are known for taking apart (breaking) rules and things, reassembling them and creating disruptions - the mother of invention's doppelganger. But how do designers do it? Here's how BitCoin is doing it and Herman Miller has done it.

A recent article describes one of many basic 4 step disruption models. This one by Steven Sinofsky - Board Partner @ Andreessen Horowitz whose founder Mark Andreesen brought Tim Berner Lee's World Wide Web to Life. Andreesen's web server prototype system at Michigan University, turned into the 1994 commercial success Netscape - the 1st commercially dominating web brower and web server technology. Steven's article and model here describes the basic process:Disruption of Incumbent, Rapid linear evolution, Appealing Convergence, Complete Reimagination. And Andreesen Horowitz is doing the same with Bitcoin having invested $40M in Bitcoin based startups so far. Mark describes how and why in a perfect Bitcoin blitzkrieg of strategy and execution purpose here. 

But Herman Miller is no Andreesen Horowitz VC or maker of Netscape. Or is it? Just one of Herman Miller's line the "Action Office" started in 1968 has alone generated $5B in revenue with total Herman Miller worldwide revenue topping $1.6B in 2011 alone. How have they done it? In possibly one of the best overall descriptions 108 Years of Herman Miller in 108 Seconds but how did they do it: similar to Steven's model above.

Now the harder question: which lasts longer: Netscape or An Eames Chair? 
And which one would you want to sit and read a story to your grandchild in?

Renovation + Design = almost $9B in 2012

Innovation vs. Renovation is a touchy subject, but when one firm reports almost $9B in 2012 via design, eyebrows are sure to raise. Dissimilar to the Nike Fuel Band, UP, Supersoaker discussion, Swatch hasn't "innovated" they've embraced the design canvas. Here's how:

In "Creating New Value for Old Innovations" the discussion surrounds how the tired old watch was "innovated" from 10% of the worlds watching being made in Switzerland to almost none until the emergence of Swatch. Did Swatch just grow via NPD or did they innovate? No they renovated. And they continue to renovate the humble watch every year tirelessly via designers and their paintbrushes and pencils on the face of a watch and band. Following Schumpeter as we always do this time via "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Creative Destruction" and MIT"s "Creative Destruction", the underlying principal is design and the object as a canvas for designers is this time a watch - constant renovation & renovation at it's finest 

Unlike The Nike Fuel Band, Facebook and a host of other product and industries that did not exist before they were created and unrelated to other products before, renovation is a separation of church and state. How not to do this, how to incorrectly wield design is best described via Forbes " Creative Destruction Is Not A Management Philosophy - It Can Be Avoided Kodak, Hostess, Microsoft" 

ShapeShifters: MIT'S inFORM and Louis Vuitton's TOPIADE

Shape Shifting is not just the domain of the Wonder Twins. Well to some extent. Developed and launched at MIT, the inFORM table phyicalizes pixels just like iGNITIATE's TOPAIDE movable facade did for Louis Vuitton facades.

in the early 2000's iGNITIATE created the programmable facade system called TOPIADE for Louis Vuitton's architecture dept later being expanded upon by  MIT's Tangible Media Lab and interviewed by Sean Follmer at Fast Company in their inFORM movable pixel table. The key components of projection, scanning and addressable blocks was originally researched at the Xerox PARC Labs by Brent Welch, Scott Elrod, Tom Moran in their seminal paper in 1993 on projection and tracking systems in real time and further extrapolated by the Microsoft Kinect system for real time scanning and interaction.

The system has evolved through the inFORM's capability to interpret 3d objects and render them on the table system in 2.5D (8 of 9 sides of the 3D space) as the table bottom cannot be fully separated. What does this mean for design, telepresence and immmersive systems? Only as much as the consumer market will demand as currently 3D projection systems are the defacto standard for interactive algorithmic modeling environments such as Grasshopper. Technically incredible. What does this mean for art and design? The same that TOPIADE meant for the art of live plant display.

Flipping Design to pump out $73M in royalties

R&D, not new product development is a lengthy effort in any companies growth. Typical large scale pharmaceutical and manufacturing firms have between a 10% and 13% investment of net revenue back in to R&D and a team of individuals who convert R&D into patented and legally defendable intellectual property securing these products positions in the creation of platforms and future products. And that’s exactly how Lonnie Johnson was able to create 73M in total royalties on his initial manufacturing partners revenues of almost 1B in revenue from his Super Soaker line. 

 

The Super Soaker Product Development Story follows the pattern of movie-esque arcs: a NASA engineer, 6yrs of prototype development and finally a manufacturer and marketing firm who (based on product design and mold costs) must have invested at least 2012 $300K in the creation of the 1st run, 1st item production models which went on to sell almost 1B in product sales. Johnson’s typical 2% royalties earned him $20M in royalties on Larami’s $1B in sales and a further 7.3% or $73M more in royalties after the acquistion of Super Soaker from Larami by Hasbro and clearly this is before legal fees. And all of this based on the idea of pumping air into a water vessel just as Lonnie pumped out of his design almost 100M in royalties from his design.

Pixar’s 22 rules for any company’s new products

Recently we were asked, as all firms are, “what makes a good product?” and classically it’s nemesis, “what does ‘good’ really mean? The fact remains, this does not apply to products – it applies to anything? Why not ask the same of “perfect” characters and then apply it to “perfect” products. Pixar’s model then sprang to mind and the rules almost “perfectly” applied. 

#1: You admire a character [product] for trying [designing] more than for their [the products] successes.  

#2: You gotta keep in mind what’s interesting to you as an audience [user], not what’s fun to do as a writer [designer]. They can be v. different.

#3: Trying for theme [grand design vision] is important, but you won’t see what the story [users full experiences with the product] is actually about til you’re at the end of it [the product life cycle]. Now rewrite [and redesign for the full product lifecycyle].

#4: Once upon a time there was ___ [product]. Every day, ___ [that product]. One day ___ [that product]. Because of that, ___ [the product]. Because of that, ___ [product]. Until finally ___ [the product was so loved that it was handed down from generation to generation]

#5: Simplify. Focus. Combine characters [functions where possible but not too much]. You’ll feel like you’re losing valuable stuff but it sets you free.

#6: What is your character [product] good at, comfortable with? Throw [design for] the polar opposite at them [to happen with the product]. Challenge them. How do they [the product] deal [with strange use-cases]?

#7: Come up with your ending [of how the product will break] before you figure out your middle [production]. Seriously. Endings [of a product life cycle] are hard, get yours working up front.

#8: Finish your story [design], let go even if it’s not perfect [when working with engineering and production]. In an ideal world you have both, but move on. Do better next time - [iterate for v2]

#9: When you’re stuck [in a products design], make a list of what WOULDN’T happen next [be the best part of the design to loose]. Lots of times the material [manufacturing & production possibilities] to get you unstuck will show up [if you keep talking to your engineering and production] team.

#10: Pull apart the stories [products] you like. What you like in them is a part of you [how you use the products]; you’ve got to recognize it before you can use it [or design it for others].

#11: Putting it on paper lets you start fixing it. If it stays in your head, a perfect idea [product or design], you’ll never share it with anyone.

#12: Discount the 1st thing that comes to mind. And the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th – get the obvious out of the way. Surprise yourself.

#13: Give your characters [products] opinions [a strong visual statement]. Passive/malleable might seem likable to you as you write [design], but it’s poison to the audience [user as it makes for boring products].

#14: Why must you tell [make] THIS story [product]? What’s the belief [desire] burning within you that your story [product] feeds off of? That’s the heart of it [and why someone will buy it]

#15: If you were your character [user], in this situation, how would you feel [when you used & held the product]? Honesty lends credibility to unbelievable situations.

#16: What are the stakes? Give us reason to root for the character [product]. What happens if they [the product] don’t succeed? Stack the odds against [and design your way out of it failing.]

#17: No work [design] is ever wasted. If it’s not working, let go and move on - it’ll come back around to be useful later [or in another situation].

#18: You have to know yourself [and users who will use the product]: the difference between doing your best & fussing [over irrelevant details]. Story telling [designing] is testing, not refining.

#19: Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating. – oddly there is no analog to this in product development

#20: Take the building blocks of a movie [product] you dislike. How would you rearrange [the exact components] into [a design of] what you DO like?

#21: You gotta identify with your situation/characters [products in the context of their use], you can’t just write [design] ‘cool’. What would make YOU act that way [want to be ‘cool’ with the product you are designing?

#22: What’s the essence of your story [product]? Most economical telling [production] of it? If you know that, you can [design, build and engineer] out from there.

                                

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

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

The Birth of the Scanner (Low Cost & Portable) Culture

With the advent of pocket “supercomputers” like the iPhone and Android comes the shrinking of 3d scanning components and the ability for portable scanners to come of age. 

Licensed from the French Engineering team ManCTL architectures for image capture, motion sensing and gaming platforms combinne to form a portable system. Alternative technologies such as the Mu thermal imaging camera for the iPhone hits the price point of $300 on an almost $300K in croudsourced funding while one time Audrino sensor packs sell for $46 each ignoring the economies of scale associated with larger production runs.
In 2010 it was the advent of the Jawbone system and the 1st introduction of the wearables culture. Next came the Nike fuelband and Adidas sports system and finally the 1st of the augmented systems embedded into Google Glass. These platforms create the bedrock for tomorrows next generation synthetic systems.

Creative Dissonance & Design for “Growth Hacking”

Creativity is a destructive act regardless of necessity being the mother of invention because when “growth hacking” for eyeballs & users begins this can’t be done without competition entering. 

What happens when you’ve got the idea, but not the cash or the technology? What happens when you’ve got the technology but not the cash? What happens when you’ve just got the cash? Without the idea and when technology is the equivalent of keeping the lights / processors on, the model becomes the same as spare cycles in a machine shop. Only now the Machines are computers and spare CPU cycles cost no more if 1 CPU is running or 5 are running and in the end, it’s people costs.

In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times on the economics of the digital effects house, Digital Domain, who competed all the imagery for Enders Game, Digital Domain invested $17 million (in employees 3D design & rendering time) in exchange for a 37% equity stake in Enders Game producing $9.8M 1st day, $27M first weekend and $59.9M 1st month sales being released in 3,407 theaters. In comparison to the equivalent 2009 Star Trek movie released in 3849 theaters with a lifetime gross of $257M the possibility for 5yr shared revenue for Digital Domain could be in the realm of 92M gross on 17M invested or a 540% return. However a recent Wired Article on Enders Game and a similar article on Growth Hacking examines the outsourced model and the necessity for WOM (Word of Mouth) models – blogging, PR, banner adds, etc., as the new mechanism for product launches where the economics is in the Google’s and Facebook’s purview – traceable and convertible.
Models for Growth Hacking, work under the assumption that network topologies must be open and shareable: the Google, Facebook, Linked-In API etc., as the standard for NFC (near field communications) are still not completely open. More, examples such as:

1) Standing out
2) Doing Weird things
3) Have a story to tell

However again, all of these efforts assume a recognition of a group behavior that has a tangible benefit for the end user like the model employed by Digital Domain in the Enders Game economic model.

“Good” Disruptive Design (Diapers.com) vs. “Bad” Predatory Design (Amazon.com)

and here's how it's done. When firms and individuals with true disruptive designs, by definition, "a product or service designed for a new [non previously purchasing] set of customers" are ready to sell innovations they have created, free market economics dictates the sale goes to highest bidder. Unless of course other mechanisms, something every 1st year MBA student learns about, are used to effect pricing. Enter the cut-throat landscape via How Jeff Bezos Crushed Diapers.com So Amazon Could Buy Diapers.com and we see how in the post Google age, no longer are the innovators the creators of value, rather aggregates of opinion are.

Competitors who don't have enough users saying a product, service, innovation or disruptive design is worthy, purchase opinion makers, aggregate users who instantly communicate via the new digital news-makers: Google, Yahoo, Bing and now fully funded image based news marauders Cheezburger who recieved 30M from Andreesen Horowitz . Need 10,000 "news" intenret indexible articles talking about a product or service that is amazing, valuable, popular? Then use Bezos's Diapers Gambit via his purchase of Diapers.com or loose that revenue stream to Walmart, by not acquiring opinion. Bezos's actions however not the way disruptive design was intended to create economic benefit for end users.

Bezos's "design process" of the Diaper Gambit unfortunately is not based on Clay Christensen's 1995 coined term "Disruptive Design"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation nor the progenator of the word "innovation" Joseph Schumpeter who defined how to create economic value through creating "the new" in his 1908 economic text "Methodological Individualism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_innovation also ignored by robotics engineer Joseph F. Engelberger who asserted that innovations require only three things: 1) A recognized need, 2) Competent people with relevant technology, and 3) Financial support. Bezos's Diaper Gambit focuses on when product design, company innocation or new product development design isn't enough, it's opinion (real or imagined) that determines outcome - something every innovator and design disruptor firm must not ignore: free market economics vs. free market predators.

Apple 'got' design for $2.5M in 1982 and by a Frog. Here's how Steve did it.

Ever wonder how Apple 'got' design? Like Gates bought DOS, Steve bought design for $2.5M/yr in 1982. Here's how Steve did it and not as Fast Company says: 

Even Fast Company scrubs the data & history but not as Christopher Mims @ Quartz magazine reports it and described here. Like any market advantage, a competitive advantage starts well before personal popular culture (read advertising and 'news') has us believe or is even aware of the advantage itself. Microsoft exists because Gates bought DOS for $50K and turned it into Windows for IBM. AC and DC were fought after by Thomas Edison who developed the opposing format to thwart competitors and performed hundreds of experiments on filaments with a whole team of researchers not inventing the lightbulb, Ive's didn't usher design into the entire culture of Apple: I've's entire group was the prodigy of a Frog - the son of Hartmut Esslinger.

It isn't often that we stop to may homage to the firms whose shoulders that we here at iGNITIATE stand on top of, but after years of knowing Hartmut and the folks at Frog, and the recent articles on design at Apple being always there from the beginning, we thought to jump in on the "correction" of the marketing machine that is Apple, Issacshons book, and Ashton's movie on the late, great Steve. However in the beginning, there was Hartmut and his firm Frog and fact that Apple bought design, brought it right into the boardroom and did it all for $1m/yr in 1982 or $2.5M 2013 dollars and the article How I Taught Steve Jobs To Put Design First tells all.

Hartmut goes on to describe how From Phones To Tablets: 26 Apple Designs That Never Came To Be and How to Innovate, Step by Step which Hartmut know exactly what he is talking about. To learn how to get true competitive advantage from design, the above is how it's done and how we do it here at iGNITIATE. 

                                

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

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

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

                                

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

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

Want Full Eco(control) Design? Design Physical & Digital Products

Investors don't like physical products? Why? Physicality costs & yet, Digital is as fleeting as haute couture. Are there options? Yes. Think like Gillette for the 21st century - physical + digital design. Here's how:

Wired Labs has a good starting point: Bundling Digital and Physical but that is just the beginning as the investigation is where the juice comes out: 

1) Ask why do it at all and what is this new thing that people are going to carry around?

2) See who's done it, so many have: Jawbone, UP, Brawn Electric Shavers w/skin sensors, naturally MP3 players, but there are others: Swifter, Roomba, Canary, etc. - we've examined these before.

3) How's it going to expand over time as if it isn't a platform and it can't learn or adapt what's the point? 

4) Planned obsolescence for alternative purposes: you've still got your old laptop around somewhere using it for other purposes? There are whole companies dedicated to recycling - yet another part of the ecosystem that your firm should be owning

And these are just a few of the ways. 

Naturally through disruptive design, there are a host more. 

                                

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

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