Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Determining Design Destiny = Defense + Disruption

Often with advanced R&D, Defense + Disruption go hand in hand with assuring a design effort destine for success. But how ?

Naturally the capability of sustainability from incumbent design, engineering, manufacturing and distribution efforts depends on the tight integration of all components of an often disperse series of players whose primary mission is the smooth delivery of functionality and value to the largest group of users - that organizations customers. However, the constant pace of rapid integration and re-integration of new possible functionalities typologies and research into alternative methods to increase speed and efficiency is often the largest area of effort of said organizations. However, it is when a combination of defense and disruption go hand in hand, and where specific design focuses are brought to bear to create additional value past that of pure efficiency.

In Incumbent Defense Strategies Against New Product Entry a work that defines several cornerstones of the way that design elasticity can directly impact a new product developments success and based squarely on the economics of production and also where this can be applied to ( in some respects ) the evolution of design typologies. It then can be said that design is equal in many ways to the standard economic engines and tools used to stabilize or de-stabilize an innovation effort through, of all things, usability either in terms of ease of use, or even aesthetics.

With this then we have the capability to re-define the value of the deign process and decoupled from the standard sales and marketing mix analysis pervasive in the time of the writing of this analysis. This is further seen within the context of the coming AI revolution in the same way that the internet influenced the way that end users interacted with products and services that previously had little if any connectivity or interconnectivity between them. We then see the true power of designs end capabilities and the way that it directly and with specific force can create an immediate value for the designer / design team and end users where the integration and use of convergence allows superior, intellectual property protected products to succeed in the real world.

 

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

 

 

Saturday, 30 July 2022

Innovation Revolution Requires Subtle Structures

Disruptive innovation ( exactly what innovation is ) when substantial & radical - if observed with a wider time window - is in effect many NPD cycles when viewed with short sight.

 



Through the course of radical innovation ( eg the switch to 100% renewable energy alternatives ) we often see that innovation ( and a disruptive one given the above ) requires, as shown in The Structure of Design Revolutions that the emphasize of sudden insights, along with those that emphasize gradual and cumulative change are both necessary for radical change to take place. Yet this is not what is the case in the minds of most designers and certainly not in the minds of mavericks. Why? Because the story of the radical shift is the necessity often for involvement.

Often moving between the balance of good, fast and cheap, and the realization that only 2 of these variables at best can be effected at one time with New Product Development efforts, requires the mentality of optimization rather than radical change. When firms and individuals slowly rotate between 2 of the 3 at a time and continue to rotate with a purposeful vision and tactical capability to achieve a radical innovation effort, breakthroughs do in fact occur.

 

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

 

 

Thursday, 30 June 2022

Systematic Synchronicity = Sustainable Synergies

Consistently we’ve seen firms that want increase sustainability being forced to balance the unstoppable rate of change related to the faster you innovate the faster you retire what you just sacrificed everything, to in fact, bring into being, vs, the focus necessary to ” innovate onward” or the backroom way of saying standard New Product Development methods that we have all come to know and love.


This can easily be seen in the image above, 100% AI created effort and a true break from the way art and deign can and will be developed in the future. More is in the most recent issue of INNOVATION magazine focusing on Sustainable Leadership published by the IDSA – Industrial Design Society of America and the article Breaking Barriers for Plastic Practicality looking at how the plastics industry is also radically changing and as connected to Design’s Heroic Mission: How Maturing the Design Culture Leads Brands to Sustainable Outcomes for industries such as the plastics industry. More, we see how this effects the subtler design languages that are just coming into being such as the Lucid Design Language. A lot less measurable than what can be enumerated in Ambidextrous innovation efforts, the effect is still the same: breakthroughs in R&D and design driven efforts.

While ” the faster you innovate the faster you retire what you just sacrificed ” has become the core definition by some as the true power of the ambidextrous organization, the reality is, innovation, a truly radical way of doing or undoing what is in place, and the disruptive design mentality does not come without substantial pitfalls. As we discussed some time ago in “ Ambidextrous Organizations Don’t Just Use Both Hands, They Use All Of Them ” we see that  where diversified firms ( in terms of their balance between true disruptive design innovation efforts ) often indeed outperform focused firms when it can be see that  the rate of decline of a technological change based on the presence of a portfolio of activities means all disruptive design efforts working in unison. We also find that when this takes place and to the extent to which resources can become reallocated across different parts of the portfolio in a rapid and laser focused effort means synergistic potentials emerge and which become powerful factors to the success of highly sustainable efforts.

While this might sound like more complexity that is necessary for such a understanding of highly innovation based efforts the reality check often comes from ignoring semi-traditional typologies such as hub and spoke and network models for, essentially, making things happen at speed. It often means, creating rapidly diverse and incredibly highly aware construct of, not experts, but interworkers who are multi-functionally trained, constantly sharing knowledge and experience with the intent on doing the seemingly impossible, and which in fact make radical innovation happen in a much more cohesive and successful manner.

 

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, 31 May 2022

Collaborative Creativity Clears Confusion In Innovation Intersections

Surprisingly collaboration requires innovative thinking, and one four stage process of deliberate creativity has a track record of simple success.

More often than not, with innovation intersections the perceived risk of using design, design thinking and breakthrough engineering efforts can cause organizations to fall back to old habits and negative reactions to change that had been built up over the years. In particular one capability via an innovation equation, P=MHA, (performance equals ability times motivation), where performance is zero if either the skill or the motivation to
use the skill is zero we find the same hurdle more often than not: if traditions are more secrecy than openness, more adversarial than co-operative, and more withholding than sharing, then no matter what the skill level, no matter what the discussion or capabilities of a team this may not be able to reach the support necessary of the firm ( even if given the chance, due to a low motivation level ) where such a low motivation can be over come. For example, if team members are thinking " I don't think we should use this process because I'm not sure it will lead to success in the eyes of my members (or my hierarchy) " or where there is not a ROI or payment that can be seen easily, then the capability to let innovation grow are stifled at the moment of growth.

However where we see specific capability to over take such issues is with Collaborative Problem Solving Through Creativity in Problem Definition and where one tools of a well proven capability via a simple two-dimensional model of Distributive-Integrative Bargaining can be applied to any tool. Yes, bargaining for the motivation of teams can be connected to relatively non-threatening and non-risky actions in organizations and which can be applied to almost any process when applied and handled integratively. It wouldn't be normal to think that creativity, design and engineering for breakthroughs could be augmented by innovation bargaining, but in fact, it is possible.

 

  

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, 29 April 2022

Innovation Doesn't Have A Creativity Problem ; It's Got A Commitment Problem

Innovation, the bastion of progress ( and often intense disruption by it's proper definition ) always faced many critics. But creativity isn't one. Commitment in the face of sometimes impossible odds is.


Recently with research from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, The University of San Diego, and Yale university ideas surrounding creativity and as connected to innovation have led to an interest in biases which can exist and are can cause challenges for optimization. Innovation however ( breakthrough, disruptive, and game changing design and engineering efforts, funded by those who have the capacity and the " who dares win " attitude to execute on said efforts ) does not often face, such roadblocks. Why? Commitment to do and use no matter what.

While innovation ( in it's most specific and true to form definition of a disruptive and often specific chain breaking effort utilized to either optimize output or, most likely, create fully new, patent protected ways of doing X ) is focused on teams and groups of people who have been empowered to do just that. Creativity for the sake of innovation, without stakeholder ( or a specific person's commitment to drive said creative effort to fruition ) is often just creativity for creativity sake and not what organizations, specific functional execution teams, or corporations are focused on which is maximizing output. Maximizing use.

This also means that social stigmas, implicit bias, subconscious blockages and creativity biases are all real and valid. Where we see this the most is when person(s), teams, and organizations are not prepared, and willing to risk it all financially and time wise ( for their own carriers and thus the departments and firms they work for ) to make the change uncovered, designed or created into reality. In the case of those who are committed to realizations uncovered and defined, engineered and ready to go, biases, stigmas and blockages tend to be water under the bridge.

Innovation's job is not only uncovering areas for change, designing, and creating new paths, it's exactly specifically the role of taking the arduous often perilous journey, time and always resource intensive, " long walk " through all the engineering, R&D, and ready to go efforts so that X makes it into the real world. It's then that larger next steps of full usability by many can be a reality and often with a larger organization to do that. Rome ( innovation ) obviously was not build in a ( creative ) day.

 
 
   

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

 

 

---