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.

Design Thinking - the ABC's in a nicely packaged movie

Often the reality of design thinking is labeled as a secondary thought to the organizational functions of who you are working for -read your organization, who you are serving -read your boss, or who you are selling to -read your customers. The difference between creative innovation, breakthrough projects and the all powerful ROI is constantly ignored as working together and necessary to work together in order to make game changing product. 
 

Finally it seems there is a movie, "Design Thinking" and with it all the basics and a few nooks and crannies that any CEO can grab a few new tricks from. While looking to the "experts" over and over again only proves to show that they did do it in the past, the film also takes quite a bit of time investigating and talking to those who are doing it now. Their fate is sealed as "successful" or "successors" it gives all the necessary value from a 2 minute trailer.

The PreCog's at Ebay's PreViz Hive

In the future forward film Minority Report, the PreCogs organized themselves as a hive mind with the capability to pre-perceive events that were to take place allowing for crime to be eliminated. While firms usually form R&D labs to create further innovations, design "groups" have also been used to focus and develop scenarios, testing environments and ultimately prototypes of goods and services that can be evaluated for next generation breakthroughs.

MIT's media lab, London's RCA IDE program and private initiatives such as Ebay's PreViz group do just that. More the lessons learned from Ebay's group are some of the basic building blocks for the development of consistent innovations similar to what GE, XEROX PARC, AT&T, etc., have been doing for years.

These programs and the internal mechanisms used in these groups are the building blocks of a firms capability to stay ahead of competitors and ultimately the marketplace. Firms consistantly staying on the cutting edge therefore are poised for growth by delighting customers with functionality BEFORE it is even requested or understood as valuable by the customer - one of the best definitions of innovation.

Design in the Boardroom

Today an interesting article became available regarding design and the boardroom. From the perspective of "newness" it is the design team the defines this. Some have also argued that it comes from the marketing team, and the sales team and yes it does. However the larger question, and most often overlooked is for what TIME FRAME do these two departments have influence over product offerings and to what level of effectiveness do these teams contribute to the longevity of a firms position in the market.

The simple argument, the COO is responsible as CMO and CTO functions reporting into the COO are effectively combined with design to form the basis for timely development. HOWEVER shifts have begun to emerge in many firms where positions such as the Head of Global Product Development are being offered seats at the board for the simple purpose of expanding the often limited scope of the 6mo, 1yr, and 2yr strategic plans typical when COO, CTO and CMO discussions are had at the board level. This ISDA article on Design in the Boardroom sets a good indication of how this is happening.

tiny design, BIG INNOVATION

Design and the conversion of design into "innovation" isn't always about the economic impact a particular product has or the market that it develops, rather it can also be about the tacit nudge a new product makes within a product line.

Take Peepster for instance a tiny little camera cute as a gumby and simple as a point and shoot Walmart disposable. Ultimate value? Well expensive, and it is used for spying purposes but it's impact on design as well as other products that can be generated from it serves it's purpose. 

ROI is seldom forgotten within the funding and development models for new products but aesthetically little gems like this shouldn't be ignored. 

                                

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

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

Entrepreneurs, "good design" & true innovation

There is no one better than the master - Dieter Rams to explain "good design" and how it makes world changing companies, e.g. Oliveti, AG, Braun, etc., into international powerhouses. Design leads the way. 

Although his words cannot be challenged ( because his work literally created the ethos for these firms and whose impact continues to create value for these firms today ) however what can be understood is that consistent design, that is the key. The Rams aesthetic in it's marvelous distinction, never wavered from it's roots and in that a design language and ethos was born. It is however not the only voice and because of it's specificity it's vocabulary and visual accent lives on . This 3 minute video explains it all.

Misnomers - The "Science" of "Good" Design

It isn't too far to stretch to assume that "science" has an answer for everything - when of course we are talking about physical objects, warp drive, or the newest Porsche 4 track steering system. The big question facing new product development is "why you want it" and for that there is no answer.

The recent article in The Atlantic "The Science of Good Design" makes a very clear case why this is a fallacy and one which more of your colleagues believe than you think. Why? Because design required ego, a masters touch, and a definitive determination of what is valuable that cannot be defined by market research studies or focus groups. Why?

Consumers consume, masters create for consumers. This is the secret of amazing design, and yet the hardest factor for companies and corporations to embrace. Unless of course you are Ferrari or Alessi. Then again, they use focus groups every now and then as well.

mass customization = innovation and pure design

The Milan furniture fair is one of the largest worldwide design events spanning everything from office, home, lighting as well as new product development. The biggest names in design from every continent arrive and for 7 solid days it is the hub of innovation.

The largest firms are present with some quite intense "breakthroughs" of design and engineering thinking - the kinds of things you won't see in you home for 5 years - 3 to be agressive. Companies like Whirpool and Aston Martin for interiors but not even limited to that as they unveil their new Cygnet at the wallpaper event. Salone is not just for furniture or design it is where some of the next big products get launched for a truly international audience

But this is often regarded as the more artistic side. So what happens when the worlds of mass customization and art come together? Projects like SketchChair are born and as reported by Fast Company. Not only can this be considered "design" is a relative sense, but the fact that upon paying for your design it is flat shipped to you. CNC and laser cut this is just another example of how consumer art in the future may be delivered to clients. Nike and many other companies have experimented with this as micro customization for some time addiding even more to the visibility of their innovator status.

ROI and "good design"

A constant question asked both in the executive education work that we do, the client drawing table, board room and around the office is "what is good design" and what is "design innovation" - a quite loaded phrase these days.

The answer, is one most may not agree with as it is a question - "what are the criteria" and none better seem to review and understand this as the "Good Design Awards" started more than 50+ years go and which is now taking applications for the 2011 award.

What is important to note is that the jury is truly an international body composed of the 3 most basic areas: design, engineering and finance. Their criteria for review is nothing short of a mystery, by voting and peer review. Their numerical review is not published and the process is as comprehensive as it is complicated in the same way as a VC funding review. What IS important is to note that no one area takes precedent: design, engineering & manufacturing or finance & ROI nor is this limited to the scope of "is this beneficial" to the company that produced the work.

What IS important is the fact (which cannot be easily seen from the results of the award) is the creativity and value that the design brings above and beyond what exists in the market, e.g. the competition to the product that has been designed and released. THIS is the true value of design and potentially the underlying value of the award itself and should be noted as you look through the many categories of fine output.

Innovation never stops when you are MIT

In a recent article MIT has been credited with creating the 1st reusable and stable "living leaf" capable of full photosynthesis and able to generate power. www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/28/artificial-leaf

While this may seen an incredible feat of science the technology was readily available in the past. The process to commercialize it and more, make it stable for mass production is the center-point for the innovation cycle. In many ways, which is highly ignored, 1st to market, or 1st to science in the case of the credited inventor of the earliest working designs does NOT = the person or firm being given credit or even economic benefit for the success of the work/innovation/design.

Here MIT demonstrates that the process is the point and the innovation is the end result of the effort from discovery through to commercialization. Not to mention a sizable economic benefit from the entire process when handled correctly.

Creating a Culture of Innovation

The development of a new product "innovation" is on the beginning for firms who are interested in continual sales and market interaction. Customers are constantly switching to competitors due to the seemingly effortless ability to change their minds and at the click of a button go to a new experience. Marketers and CEO's alike understand the switching costs are no longer costs, they are switching thoughts - infinitesimally small costs.

An interesting place to start digging into this is with an article by the Gallup Group on Creating a Culture of Innovation. While basic, it is an excellent primer on how to begin the journey.

Normal photos become 3D products instantly.

With the consistent evolution of new technologies and the ubiquitous handheld platforms researchers are putting into the hands of ordinary people applications capable of "instant" design. The new Microsoft Research Labs 3D iPhone scanner literally allows for on the fly stitching and rendering of complex objects. The whole technology can be seen here.....

What this means for clients and end consumers is the ability to snap photos, scan, render, send and then manipulate physical objects for the comparison and possible re-engineering into other products. Add the capability of Rapid Prototyping and new products (skins specifically) happen immediately. Companies now have to contend with anyone taking a photo of a competitors tea cup, send it to a Indonesian designer, re-interpret the design, have it produced in China and out to market in 30 days. And there is no slow down in sight