How to Beat the #1 Creativity Crusher to Innovation: You

Next week at the world's biggest design event, Salone Del Mobile, Milan you might be overwhelmed by miles & miles of the best designers in the world thinking your firm isn't innovating because of your CFO's R&D spending attitude or your Board's risk averse ways. You might feel you can't compete but here's how top innovators beat that feeling:

1) It's all self doubt, so cut that out and you've beaten it. How?
2) Remember why you create and innovate in the 1st place
3) Take small steps. or you're going to kill yourself in the process
4) Marvel at others' talent - because someone's always "better" than your firm
5) Re-frame your self-doubt & make it a monster to be slain
6) Surround yourself with supportive people and focus on your teams capabilities
7) Celebrate all that you create
8) Talk to someone you trust not just people that you pay to work for you
9) Find what puts you and your firm in the creative zone. If it's beer, drink more, if it's outings to customers, take more. Feed the fire and it grows warmer
10) Just go for it.
11) And here is Margarita Tartakovsky's article to give you a bit more flavor. 

                                

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

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

Breaking the Design Fixation – It’s all in the Innovation Flow

Limitations are the basis for all finalized & developed output: engineering and economics cannot be ignored. But what about when this is exactly what you must avoid?  Here’s how.

As fully and perfectly detailed in Examining Design Fixation In Engineering Idea Generation: The Role Of Example Modality we see the basis of limitations placed on designers and engineers when R&D for new product development efforts are taking place. The limitations for this are therefore initially visual and quickly become functional based on the capability of the mechanisms used to produce said designs with the final limitations being placed by the economic ramifications of the manufacturing process.

What be comes apparent is the mechanisms and mentalities of the views that that the designers hold when the initial investigations of the typologies to be investigated are completed. Simply, what you see is the 1^st limitation of the possible domains that you might investigate. By removing limitations from the 1^st instances, the expectations become limitless and innovation is able to flow freely. Value is then a byproduct that cannot be ignored when breakthroughs are realized.

                                

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

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

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

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

McKinsey doesn't get it, but Google Does: Design Sprints

Design can be a trip to the Caribbean or a battle with Somali Pirates & that's been our last week here at iGNITIATE. How did we focus our clients? Ignoring McKinsey and embracing Google: Google Design Sprints in fact.

Google Ventures has been focusing on design, design thinking surrounding physical products like Google Glass and the Google Phone designed by Mike & Maaike as well as service design and UI design. Google has now started  publishing much of their design thinking models via the Google Design Labs. An overview of their process can be found here, and in typical sillicon valley fashion, design and even a disruptive design model - one we particularly are interested in. Want to know how they do it? Here's the summary:

1) PICK A BIG FIGHT - and when the problem is too simple expand it. Design thinking especially disruptive design thinking means looking at the whole picture?
2) GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE - and that means eyes and ears you don't normally bring around. Sing the same song all the time and you will never create Nirvana
3) SCHEDULE THE USER STUDY BEFORE YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO TEST - however this is where we disagree for in some situations and especially with expressive design, analysis paralysis is guaranteed the more exponential questions you ask
4)  FIND A FACILITATOR - necessary as an advocate in law situations yet sometimes limiting for true artistic or design art "breakthroughs"
5) PUT IT ON THE CALENDAR - keeping track is again against the design ethos of the design artists however for corporate "user centric" and "co-creation" better known as customer centric design this keeps things moving and people accountable
6) GATHER THE INGREDIENTS - paper, pencils, etc., and this is more for those managing as design artists can make it all happen with a crayon and newsprint if that's all there is

                                

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

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

Want perfectly simple products and services? Ditch the Advertising

In "SIMPLE" by Siegel and Gale's Alan Siegel and Irene Etzkorn we see the complexity in advertising agency "luxuriousness" - large design fees. Want to debunk it? Simply, Leave out the advertisers. Here's how: 

     1) "encountering focus group consumers who expressed a clear preference for food products with fewer ingredients" ----> no, consumers want amazingly well made products cheap. It's not possible - hence advertising. It's something to deal with. 

     2) " use the term "breakthrough simplicity" to describe an approach to innovation that is rooted in finding new ways to make everything simpler." ---> no, it means accepting complexities cost. 

     3) "the airlines example" no, it means working towards Google's dead simple interfaces (and not knowing anything about the back end)  not following yahoo's example of advertising everything. people want cheap tickets, a snack and no gimmicks. Do that you have a winner. Example: JetBlue & EasyJet

     4) "THE MORE COMPLICATED A PARTICULAR PRODUCT OR SERVICE WITHIN THAT INDUSTRY MAY BE, THE MORE OPPORTUNITIES THERE ARE FOR SIMPLIFICATION." no, the more opportunities to advertise the deficienies and waste money charging for it. Simple products require no advertising. 

     5) "make the right high-quality choices for these customers--and then make sure they understand that what you’re providing is a simple solution " no, stop making things complicated from the start. if you can put it all on one chart (and any company can) then decisions are easy, else, else, it's advertising complicating it. Example, the simple VC rule. "explain it to me like I'm 5"
     6) "Today, it’s clear that most people--more than 80 percent" no, it's always been this way. when has anyone ever asked for life to be more complicated? never. this is tautological and why? " 72 percent of U.S. consumers want companies to be more transparent" ergo, when has anyone ever wanted the wool pulled over their eyes? Never. 

     7) "An Adweek/Harris Poll noted that three-quarters of Americans have found a commercial on TV confusing. On a more consistent basis, 21 percent often find that commercials lack clarity." no, it's even easier than that - customers don't like being confused or lied to

and finally, "And last and foremost--getting back to what matters most in business--simplicity sells.", yes, as when products put in front of the consumer what is, what can be, what will happen when they use X, and what it will cost it is values and professional services firms can charge for it, else, it's just advertising.

Simple.

                                

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

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