Tuesday, 3 September 2019

Does Dedicated Innovation Focus Increase Design Success ? Not Necessarily. But It Can.

As innovators aren't meant to confirm, they are meant to converge, in facing the innovation games most complex foe, ROI, the reality is numbers don't lie. The issue is that the numbers related to what is true efficacy cannot be evaluated without context. However efficiency is not all monetary but unfortunately that is what the basis of innovation focuses on. Innovation by it's original definition by Joseph Schumpeter is 100% rooted in the world of economics. Schumpeter tried to start a bank, failed, was an economist / finance minister, failed, had nervous breakdowns several times over the course of his life, almost died and pushed himself and his investors with theories of cyclicity - when to buy, how to buy, when to sell, how to sell as a mechanism of how to increase shareholder value. While accurate in the race of ROI, in combination with the notions of how innovation is effected by a gold monetary standard , fiat monetary standard etc., every focus was economic and policy based. This however is not the only basis for innovation and certainly not to be evaluated in isolation. Why? Because micro ( non-societal based innovation efficacy ) ate a firm level is executed upon by industrious individuals regardless of external forces. Innovators simply do not stop just because a market says it is time or not time to launch.


In The Role of Dedicated Innovation Functions for Innovation Process Control and Performance we see a quite surprising outcome: informal control mechanisms ( when helping innovation along inside an existing organization ) has a positive effect on innovation activity ( more experimentation is taking place & people are trying new things ) and innovation performance ( more breakthroughs are being utilized ) out in the filed however with a formal control mechanism having significant positive effect on innovation performance ( usability in the field ) does mean continues innovation activity will take place. With the implementation of a dedicated innovation function ( an innovation office, and staff ) to monetize "new" efforts do in fact have a positive effect on both control mechanisms ( the people sheparding new efforts ) and innovation activity ( people in the field trying, trying, trying, new things ) but then comes the unexpected.

Contrary to expectations, an innovation ( office, and staff ) function’s direct effect on innovation performance is negative which is not surprising for one simple reason: it's infancy, innovation, IS invention and in it's adolescence morphs ( due to conformity to the existing organism capabiliteis ) to new set of environmental factors not previously there eg. the ever famous iPod whose demanded use of DRM as a legal framework for ownership ( from record companies ) which once in place cemented the adoption of new, previous unacceptable design creativity eg. the selection wheel interface. Had the typical model of innovation ( economics over experimentation ) taken place, the entire design effort ( of new interfaces, new modalities for digital audio playback use ) may have been thrown out: no one would have seen the value in the experimentation for the purpose of innovation past a few drawings on paper. Or would it?

Innovation within the context of formal product development is often ascribed to incrementalism and thus new product development efforts. Innovation within the context of informal and often ego based experimentalism becomes the key to rule breaker mentalities where when convergence occurs at a later time allows for breakthroughs that force change upon an organism faster than incremental adoption.
  

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

Friday, 9 August 2019

Intuition ( Innovation ) Means Exploration Success Or Investigation Enumeration ? Both

Intuition ( Innovation ) Means Exploration Success Or Investigation Enumeration ? Both. But you better be prepared for it.


When it comes to innovation, the reality is that dominance requires exploitation. Breakthroughs however do not necessarily align with this capability, at least in the "soft" sense. How can a balance be struck internally in your organization and in an individual so that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater ? Here is how.

One of the key takeaways from The Role of Intuition and Deliberation for Exploration and Exploitation Success is that "exploration [ which is ] strongly related to intuitive decision making draws on both intuitive and deliberate decision making" however exploitation does not. Does this directly impact the perceived calm and persistence of your organizations ethos ? Yes. Does this coincide with frogs in boiling pots of water before they become cuisses de grenouilles? And more importantly can this be reversed ? Can intuitive decision-making style have a negative effect on exploitative success? Apparently observation is not positively correlated with deliberate decision-making and thus exploitative success. Why?

Essentially you can't leave it only to the bravest or most farsighted individuals for their decisions to influence long term success solely based on intuition. Organizations and organisms pay for long term successes to be assured just like droves of 2nd wave colonizers paid handsomely for accurate maps to their enterprising destinations. When it comes to discovery, intuition and innovation via exploratory success AND investigative enumeration is the surest way to increase breakthrough products and services.
  

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

Thursday, 4 July 2019

Want Breakthrough Innovation In Your Company? Or Even Country? It's ALL Practices

Apparently “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”, a phrase originated by Peter Drucker and made famous by Mark Fields, President at Ford, however the more important question is why? Because an embedded culture is accepted where as strategy ( even when necessary and correct ) will often be fought and cause innovation to be killed as in one of the most famous examples with Kodak who 1st created the digital camera in 1975 and who never profited from it / dominated the market with it's technology. How can this be fixed ? Skunkwork Slingshots.


In "National Personality Profiles and Innovation: The Role of Cultural Practices"  we quickly learn that a negative national bias towards innovativeness virtually disappears as soon as national cultural practices are adopted and just how it worked in Singapore which went from a virtually unknown design and innovation economy in 2007 to being ranked 5th in 2017 from being ranked in the 20's only 10 years previously. After examining 33 countries, even this study might be limited given the 195 countries in the world today. however one might also guess that ANY effort where cash and resources are put towards something is where action happens. Not necessarily so and as in the case with Kodak and it's digital camera breakthroughs in 1975.

More specifically we see that national innovativeness is more closely related to cultural factors ( what is paid for and valued in the culture/country/company ) than to national personality profiles or a populations personal and individual profiles as people taken separately from their vocation, where time is spent and attitudes toward probably the most important factor: uncertainty avoidance correlated with high future orientation. Translation - do we see the same vision then innovation is assured and as in an excellent example Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 started in 2016.



 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

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

Diversity Matters And Diversity Determent - The Innovation Reality Lens

One of the most substantial underpinnings of interactions between diverse groups in organizations committed to specific goals is between the (a) "focusers" and (b) "electrons" and as related to this syntactically oriented quote from 'Including Diversity In Creative Teamwork In Design Education' stating: "Until (a) find a way to expose (b) to a meaningful range of culture, (b) will continue to speak in languages that only their ( b) [piers] understand." which illustrates what we are calling the Innovation Reality Lens.



By contrast The Reality Distortion Lens ( a phrase popularized by the capability of Steve Jobs from Apple Computing ) rather seeks to, with peers in organization O that when solution X, Y , or Z, is defined the solution will be judged the "best" by the pool of potential end users / purchasers but not necessarily within the content of an environment in which they currently reside. As design, engineering, innovation is not done for the purpose of art, rather completed for the purpose of ROI or expected optimization of outcomes from a pool of eventualities, if diversity leads to the increase of optimization, "success" is bestowed and diversity is a by product of inclusion. Drinking the KoolAid is simply the expectation.

As detailed in "Including Diversity In Creative Teamwork In Design Education"  we strangely ( and without inconsistent rarity in the real world ) see that "the [client's] approaches and knowledge domains were not salient or used constructively in the projects." or possibly ( and is often the case ) that the product produced was not for the client's environment, rather that external forces ( imposed by the environment at hand or dictated by a specific predetermined outcome that was to occur ) creates a disruptive innovation / creative destruction innovation situation. In the case of factory turnarounds and full scale firm changes, this is often the case, however there are simple solutions - a reality check with the outside world ala demand analysis - are the products wanted or not. 



 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

Friday, 3 May 2019

When Design and Entrepreneurship Embrace, The Innovation Paradox Can Emerge

The perceived struggle between design, engineering, finance and their often well received love child, innovation is not a common roadblock to success for global organizations when balance and focus are carefully applied to what has been referred to as the product paradox.


The product paradox is not the same as The productivity paradox associated with when  more investment is made in information technology, worker productivity goes up assuming ( in recent years ) that a similar amount of innovation takes place. Although this may seem counter-intuitive we once again see in "Fostering Creativity in New Product Development through Entrepreneurial Decision Making" how, in reality, dealing with affectation ( or the balancing of goals and those around you vs a resources and constraints that have little chance of drastically changing ) and yet while ignoring causation will bring a much higher success rate in radical design, engineering, finance and thus innovation success. This means working on a "what we have done has created X and we must deal with it as it is now" limits the reality in which true major topological changes can be brought into the real world.

When design, engineering, finance and thus innovation are working together via the above, there is a substantially smaller chance for discontinuity and the Innovation Paradox to emerge  in organizations.


 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

---