I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback on subjects for future blog posts so I asked a question on Linkedin, as you do. So far, the relevant points I’ve got are:

From Siamack Salari – “Understanding the difference between innovation and evolution. Also, unarticulated needs – where do you even begin to disentangle those from everyday life behaviour?” I’ll need to get some clarification on the innovation vs evolution point, but the second point about unarticulated needs is crystal clear and really relevant to targeted technology innovation. Expect some stuff on this.

From Reut Schwartz-Hebron: “Innovation is not just about having a great idea– it’s about implementation and buy in. I think one of the topics technology innovators need are around:
- motivating people to adopt change
- how learning is a teacher’s job (in other words what change facilitators can do to increase learning)”

I think the subject of innovation and change are very closely linked together. Often market breakthrough product implementation first of all requires a mindset shift within the organisation before the end product can be successful. More on this in later posts.

From Brian Cambell: “Why doesn’t TRIZ sell? Why does UK plc pay lip service to innovation? Why do innovation consultants ignore TRIZ?” All good questions, I reckon there should be some good posting to come on this lot. I’ve already had some good debate on the first TRIZ point in comments on my previous post on TRIZ certification.

Finally, from Ellen Domb: “Why “Technology Innovation?” I see lots of situations where it is innovation in marketing or packaging or business processes (be innovative about who the customer could be, rather than the technology of the product.) Technology innovation is a very small % of successful innovation, but it gets a lot of attention already.”

I agree with some of this, in that innovations in marketing, business process or packaging design on their own can deliver significant market impact. There is a place for this type of innovation – for example in the UK the P&G brand Ariel was positioned as an innovative 30 degree Centigrade washing powder even though the product remained unchanged. Suddenly it was very good for saving Polar Bears with nothing more than a new marketing message and packaging design.  In P&G speak, I think this is known as Commercial Innovation. However, while there is a place for this type of innovation, this blog is not that place! This blog is about creating market breakthrough products through targeted technology innovation. What do I mean by targeted? Building on insightful business strategy, combinations of new business models and deep market understanding to scope and direct a systematic process to eliminate the shortfall in today’s technology. This final bit can be done pretty well through combinations of advanced TRIZ thinking, Open Innovation and good old fashioned networking, but there is room for improvement and this is where this blog comes in. This blog is about learning how to target and deliver breakthrough innovation better, with more repeatability and greater vision. In my view this is the sort of innovation which doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

David Kutchner has added a comment to my previous post on Open Innovation Marketplaces, highlighting another option. This one offers a lower entry cost than the other three I mentioned. By the way RFP stands for “Request For Proposal”.

According to David: “The RFP Database is pretty simple: it’s a literal trading-place for RFPs, as well as a damn good place to post your RFP and get competitive bids and project proposals from vendors interested in your project. While it doesn’t necessarily cover the same market as Nine Sigma, it’s essentially the same thing, minus the onerous fees and commissions that they charge. We try to keep ourselves out of the process as much as possible and instead let the RFP speak for itself and the people putting forth projects to speak directly to the issuing organizations. We have grant projects going through all the time, as well as organizations looking for proposals on research for specific topics. In some cases we’ve been employed to help organizations compose their RFPs, publish them, and analyze the received proposals, but for the most part we’re simply a platform. Unlike some of the competing spaces, ours is exceptionally egalitarian in that the costs to gain access to projects are $2/project lead OR free depending on how you make use of our site (ratio system to encourage users to contribute projects they aren’t bidding on). There is no sliding scale, no commission, no subscription fees, etc.”

I’ve had a look at the sort of things being posted and David is right, it isn’t really covering the technology problem solving area as for example Nine Sigma and Innocentive do, with more of a request for tender or organisation to organisation dating service feel to it. It also doesn’t yet have the scope of the other idea marketplaces in terms of solver or seeker base. I like, however, the approach of undercutting the existing providers and going after “non-consumption” to coin a Clayton Christensen phrase.

Thinking about it, I reckon there is another opportunity to target non-consumption in an area which is very obvious in the UK – that is, connecting small companies who have great technologies but limited scope in terms of sales up to bigger markets, either in terms of licencing from large companies or sales of product. The only option available at present is for a number to small companies to get together and negotiate a slot on Yet2.com. It would be great to get feedback from the US on this, is there a problem there for small companies and entrpreneurs too?

I’ve just been reading in the MIT Sloan management review (here is a summary article) about the rise of Virtual Customer Environments (VCEs) as a means of forging closer links with customers in the areas of innovation and value creation. Microsoft, Cisco, Nokia, Volvo and Nike are mentioned as being pioneers in this area. A VCE can be as simple as an on-line discussion forum or a sophisticated product prototyping centre. By interacting with customers, Nokia have been able to tap into innovative design concepts. AB Volvo were able to accelerate product development by incorporating customers in virtual product concept labs. At present, VCEs are being used in five different (but in my view fairly close) roles in customer value co-creation: product conceptualizer, product designer, product tester, product support and product marketer. Here’s a little more on each of these:

Product conceptualizer:

This is where companies encourage customers to interact among themselves to generate and develop product improvement ideas. An example of this is Ducati Motor Holding SpA, the Italian motorcycle company with their Tech Cafe, where customers share design ideas (even including detailed engineering drawings) to customise and improve their bikes.

Product Design

Customers can design their idel product using virtual prototyping tools in the VCE. For example BMWs Customer Innovation Lab (see related article in European Business Forum) gives customers the tools to create their own designs. PSA also do something similar.

Product Tester

Companies are starting to harness virtual product technologies to engage their customers in testing concepts. Volvo and Audi have both implemented this capability

Product Support Specialist

Basically getting your expert users to support other users. Not quite so relevant to my innovation theme, so I’ll move through this one quickly. Perhaps not surprisingly, Microsoft and Cisco seem to be the main companies pushing this.

Product Marketer

Some companies have used customer expertise in product marketing activities carried out on VCEs. Both Korea’s Samsung and Japan’s Suzuki have experimented with virtual product launch centres, employing interactive product simulations and in the process engaging customers in product marketing.

All in all, these technologies, seem to offer innovative companies many opportunities in future: better engagement of customers, reduced time to market, potential for viral marketing and ability to derive input from lead users (see my previous post on this subject). My only concern with these technologies is that used blindly, they could become a tool for averaging and “group think”. There still needs to be room in tomorrow’s innovation processes for the sort of visionary connections and insights which can create true breakthrough product.  

�

 

I saw this on Techcrunch and I thought you might enjoy it. It seems that James Dyson is keen to emphasise the robustness of his latest vacuum cleaners. In my book, this has to be a good thing – my current Dyson vacuum cleaner has continued to self-dissassemble (if that’s a verb) over the last couple of years but I’m just too tight to go out and buy a new one, so I’ve jury rigged it. Anyway, on the video you can see that James clearly has some frustrations to work off as he roundly abuses one of his products. My hypothesis is that he may have been having a bad day. In terms of his robustness strategy, he is on the right track when he mentions rigorous testing, which is a good first step but he doesn’t mention any of the other good stuff you can and should do to get a fully robust product and not compromise time to market. I know it can be a bit dull but FMEA is still a very powerful tool and TRIZ can also help to identify functional areas of a product which can go wrong. In addition I use a proprietary Critical Parameter tool to investigate and assure robustness of new technologies. It really works! More on this another time.

 

Also there is a link to a video on his new hand dryer which uses a small brushless motor running at 100,000RPM to blow air at 400MPH in a thin blade at your hands. very whooshy! No heater too, which is good for energy consumption. There is a problem, however, for me as a user of the Airblade. Although it was good at drying my hands quickly, am I alone when I say there is a really worrying thing about putting your hands completely into something with a name containing the word “blade”? Call me a soft if you like but it gave me the shivers.

I do admire a couple of things about James Dyson though:

1. he is not afraid of making mistakes

2. he targets technology to solve user problems, just like I’ve been saying in my blog!�

Open Innovation. The holy grail of modern innovative companies. So all you have to do is connect with innovators around the world and, hey presto, all your innovation worries are gone! Of course, in real life it’s not quite that simple, for a start how do you go about connecting with all these innovators in the first place. The trouble with Open Innovation is that it’s open – do you really want to open up all your strategic issues to the world in the hope of gettting a solution? What about IP, how do you handle that? well, there are a number of idea marketplaces (Ideagoras) which help companies get through this process. The top three, in my view, are:

Nine Sigma who source innovative solutions for their clients (Innovation Seekers) by using a global network of up to 1.5m Solution Providers. They cover a broad range of technical disciplines…chemistry, materials, electrical/electronics, packaging, food, formulation, consumer preferences, health/life sciences, renewable energy and more. Interestingly, many large organizations are registered as Solution Providers as well as Innovation Seekers. Nine Sigma posts new, often annonymous Request For Proposal (RFP) documents on it’s website on a weekly basis. The Client typically pays an up-front fee of $15K (2007 prices) per RFP with risk sharing “success commission” based on paying Nine Sigma a percentage of the final contract value. RFPs are sent by e-mail notification each week to registered Solution Providers and Affiliates. Solution Providers are offered a prize for the best solution(s) generally ranging from $5K to $50K. In my experience as a Solution Provider, it can take a very long time (nearly 2 months and counting) to get a response if you submit a proposal. I’ve heard from others that they never received a response.

Nine Sigma has a very rapid rate of growth of their Solution Provider base, primarily through Affiliates. Large client organisations have had some big successes through Nine Sigma and are expanding their agreements, increasing the number of RFPs that they are posting. However, for smaller innovators it’s worth noting that many of the transactions are between large companies with complementary capabilities and strong IP awareness.

Innocentive connects companies, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations (Seekers) with a global network of more than 145,000 of the world’s brightest minds (Solvers) and aims to Become the “Google” of the innovation search. Challenges are posted annonymously normally and solutions have come from more than 30 countries with over 550 postings for innovation challenges since starting, 192 awards to date. Recognition is given to successful solvers on the InnoCentive website and in my view Innocentive is aimed more at the research scientist community than Nine Sigma. InnoCentive is also innovating the way it markets itself e.g. use of Youtube (here is an example of a seeker and solver video). The cash awards for solving challenges are in the range $5,000 to $100,000 (but can be as high as $1m). InnoCentive have so far paid out over $13m in prizes. As with Nine Sigma, there is an initial posting fee which varies according to the type of challenge but is in the range of $6,000 to $15,000. There is also a success fee based on the value of follow-on contract or award value. Innovation Challenges are sent by e-mail to Solvers once a week. Innocentive have experienced extremely rapid growth (45% per month) of solver base, number of challenges and value of awards. I haven’t actually answered any Innocentive Challenges although I have recently seen one that I might have a go at.

With both Nine Sigma and inncentive, as a Solver/Solution Provider, you need to have a look at their contractual terms and conditions. Both sites talk about “Non-confidential disclosure” which they say is mainly intended to prevent the client being compromised by IP. However, as a Solver/Solution Provider you should also think about your rights and if you think you have something that is new (after a quick prior art search) then the best thing to do is protect it by filing a patent. This needn’t be a scary experience. I’ve recently filed 3 patents; it was cheap and once you get the style of the lingo it is relatively straightforward. More on this in another post. 

Which brings me on to the third Ideagora:

Yet2.com is a bit different as it is focused around buying and selling IP. They exist “to help technology companies realise value from their Intellectual Property”. Yet2.com claims to operate the largest Global online marketplace for technology transfer. The yet2.com internet presence is said to be a unique resource to facilitate deals with 120,000+ registered users, 40,000 companies, Network of 12,000+ smaller companies ($10-500m). Yet2.com also says it holds 500,000 data points of known solutions and specialises in “In-licensing ” and “out-licensing” IP for large companies and SMEs. Yet2.com closed 20+ deals last year and completed transactions for 10 F500 companies in Q4 2007 with 71% of the deals between companies from different industries. Yet2.com provides consulting support throughout a project and stays engaged in the deal-making process and Yet2.com claims that it is very well placed to help companies acquire technology because it also helps clients exploit technology.

Typical client rates (2007 rates):
Membership fee $4,000 to $30,000
Consulting service fee $30,000 to $40,000
Success fee: % of value to the deal but capped

There is some interesting stuff on Yet2.com and it is certainly worth a look if you’re cruising fro technology to answer your specific problem. I’ve already found useful technologies in here for my clients. It might be a good place to post your technology IP, if you can afford it.

So, what do I think about these new marketplaces? Well I reckon that they do present an important new resource for technology sourcing for Innovation Managers and R&D Directors, and as they have got bigger they are beginning to approach the critical mass necessary to deliver meaningful innovation. For innovation minded companies, they can no longer be ignored. However, don’t expect them to solve every problem you have – one statistic to bear in mind is that on average (Nine Sigma and Innocentive figures) they only manage to get suitable answers to 40% of their postings. Here is a downloadable powerpoint presentation: the-ideagora-an-emerging-innovation-marketplace

I guess we think that today we are right at the leading edge of innovation and earlier civilisations had more trivial challenges than we do. But, have you ever wondered how the Greeks or Romans might have dug tunnels through a mountain of solid rock, sometimes as much as 1000m long, from two ends with both teams meeting up in the middle? Maybe not. Recently someone, perhaps with a slight sadistic tendency, challenged me to put forwards an explanation. How could the Greeks, without GPS, surveying instruments, dynamite, magnetic compass and even much in the way of mathematics have possibly been able to achieve this feat? After a lot of thinking I separated the problem into three components:

1. How to ensure both teams start at and stay at the same elevation?

2. How to ensure that both teams align in the same direction so that they can work towards each other?

3. How to dig through solid rock without dynamite? 

After a lot of further though and TRIZ thinking around use of easily available feild and substance resources this is where I ended up:

Let’s think about problem 1 first. What resources do we have which could provide a common level. One possible resource is the field of gravity and the substance water. If you are able to dig a channel with water in it around the mountain, the elevation of the water surface must be the same at either end. The channel would then be used to set the height of two pillars, giving an elevation eyeline for the diggers on either end of the tunnel. That was my solution to problem 1.

On to problem 2. This is a problem of alignment. What simple detection fields might be available? How about optical, maybe that could work? If you could position a sighting point at the top of the mountain, compoesed of two poles of plumb lines and use this to align two poles on either side of the mountain then these could provide a reference point for each team digging through.

Finally on problem 3, the problem here is how to separate rock. One technique which can easily split rock is to drill holes into the rock and drive wooden plugs into the holes. Once the wooden plugs are in place if you pour water over them, they will expand with considerable force – more than enough if positioned correctly to split and separate rock.

Identifying and executing these three solutions is non-trivial today so imagine what it must have been like 2,500 years ago. Maybe the Greeks were pretty smart after all. For some further information on other hypotheses and to judge how I did with my possible solutions, click on this link. Also, if you ever wondered how they moved the Stonehenge rocks click here.  

 

Tunnel of Samos

Well, according to Chicago based Design and Innovation consultants, Doblin Inc. , the magic number is …10. Doblin have categorised their 10 different types of innovation under four main headings

• Finance, covering business models and networks/alliances
• Process,  covering what Doblin call enabling processes and core processes
• Offerings, including product perfomance, product system and service
• Delivery, covering channel, brand and customer experience

Here is a diagram to illustrate the innovation types, with some examples:

Many product innovations focus on one or two areas but Doblin claim that if you focus on a broader range of innovations which have relevance to your target market, you can increase your chances of success. To illustrate this, Doblin say that the iPod innovated across 7 of the 10 types of innovation.

 

I guess the value of a model like this is to help innovators to prompt concepts which can impact more broadly and, in particular, can be used to encourage different thinking around new business models, an often overlooked but powerful area for innovation. In my view, however, while this model provides a useful prompt, it is over-complicated for real world innovation.

�

I’ve just received an e-mail inviting me to subscribe to a new vlog set up by Siamack Salari of Everyday Lives. I’ve had a look and I reckon it promises to be an entertaining watch. Already posted is a disturbing video diary of Siamacks globetrotting travels which gave me jet lag just watching it. The new Ethnosnacker vlog is aimed at “exposing, breaking down and reconstructing ethnographic research or commerical anthropology for those who want to understand it better”. Knowing Siamack it will be well worth checking out regularly. I’m looking forwards to learning some new stuff too.

I saw this article in the Times today. It appears that Tunbridge Wells borough council in Kent has banned the term “brainstorm” and replaced it with the term “thought shower” because of concerns that the term might be offensive to people with epilepsy. Amid all the controversy about political correctness etc. a bigger question occurred to me – why do brainstorming/thought showering at all any more? The whole process of randomly generating ideas in the hope that one of them will provide the ideal solution seems to me to be little more than guesswork or gambling. I don’t know if it’s just me but I used to get a real sinking feeling when faced with sheets of flipcharts full of ideas still needing to be teased through. These days there are far better ways of targeting the required solution and approaching the problem situation systematically. In this blog I’m aiming to show you powerful thinking tools and processes which can help you to ditch the guesswork and identify close to ideal solutions every time.

We’re all being told to get closer to our consumers, to listen to our consumers, to get under our consumers skin, but is this enough to generate truly breakthrough ideas and future product concepts. Sometimes, you will strike it lucky but I believe if you really want to expose your self to strong innovation directions you need to go far broader. Say you’ve done your market analysis and you’ve got a target group of consumers. Standard industry practice says you should use tools such as storytelling, observation and focus groups with this target group. I say you should still do this but you should also cast your innovation net far wider. Here is a useful model to help you broaden your search for innovative concepts:

 

Step 1. Go ahead and research your target customer group, which can be done using standard tools such as 1 to 1 interviews, focus groups and basic observation. More sophisiticated tools such as story-telling where you get customers to prepare a story related to the subject matter you wish to research can pull out further insights. Other powerful approaches are accompanied shopping or direct observation. Allow maybe 40-50% of your total research time for this activity.

Step 2. Indentify stakeholders who are likely to observe and interact with your target customers as they use the product and interview them about how they see your customers behave. Potential candidates as stakeholders could be service engineers for users of office equipment, doctors in the case of patients in hospital or catering managers or shop keepers for snack consumers. Allow maybe 10-20% of your research time for this step.

Step 3. Put yourself in the shoes of your consumers, in short, be your consumer. Spend a day in the life of your consumer. If you are an engineer working on a new family car design, spend a day using the car with your family. Notice the things which are frustrating and the things which you like as a customer and user would. I understand Nissan used this approach when they asked their engineers, 5 at a time, to sit, with writing pads at the ready, in the Nissan Micra for 30 minutes collecting insights about their experience. Allow 10% of your research time for this.

Step 4. When I say deep users, what I mean here are extreme, passionate users of your product. So if you want to research coffee, talk to the consumers who prepare their own coffee blend, maybe even roasting it themselves. These consumers are likely to value product elements which can help you identify true stand-out products of the future, Purple Cow products, you might say. Allow 10-20% of your time here.

Step 5. Study parallel indutries and markets. Many powerful insights can be derived from practices which may well be common in other industries. Tools such as TRIZ can play a role during this stage to help identify suitable candidate industries. An interesting cross over industry that immediately comes to mind is human food and pet food, where trends in the first industry quickly transition into the second. Another example is the transition of ideas from pharmaceutical to food in the area of functional food. Allow 10% of your time here.

This process can help you get deeper insights which can help you create real breakthrough concepts

�