Killer Innovations: reblog

As The Practice of Leadership blog points out, the Center for Creative Leadership has developed the following 5 principles that form the essence of innovation. In short, these five principles give life to the process of innovation:

(1) Innovation starts when people convert problems to ideas. New ideas are born through questions, problems and obstacles. The process of innovation is indebted to the trouble that comes about when we are surrounded by that which is not solved, not smooth and not simple.

(2) Innovation needs a system. All organizations have innovation systems. Some are formal, designed by the leadership, and some are informal, taking place outside established channels.

(3) Passion is the fuel, and pain is the hidden ingredient. Ideas do not propel themselves; passion makes them go.

(4) Co-locating drives effective exchange. Co-location refers to physical proximity between people. It is a key for building the trust that is essential to the innovation process. It also increases the possibility for greater exchange of information, cross-fertilization of ideas, stimulation of creative thinking in one another and critique of ideas during their formative stage.

(5) Differences should be leveraged. The differences that normally divide people — such as language, culture, race, gender and thinking and problem solving styles — can be a boon to innovation.

[image: Center for Creative Leadership in Colorado Springs]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 30, 2007 at 02:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I recently caught a talk by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, about the role of design in corporate innovation. Here’s what I heard:

• Design in everywhere these days especially on the minds of many CEOs many of whom don’t know how to make use of it.
• Designers have a unique process for solving problems that Tim refers to as design thinking. When most people think about design they tend to focus on the deliverables –the end results. Companies that view design as JUST making things pretty or are missing the point.
• Design thinking can be used to tackle a wide range of creative & business issues including developing strategies that help determine where a company can go in the future.

Design Thinking can be used to:

• Drive strategy
  • Designers can visualize the future, they can show what it can look like.
  • No one knows how to act on strategy from Powerpoint or Excel, etc.
  • Example: HBO used design to envision the future of media distribution
• Create new markets
  • Design can help create new value.
  • Example: Shimano used design to create a new form of biking, bikes, and messaging
• Create new offerings
  • Example: Microjet (sub million dollar jet) is more safe and reliable than propeller planes and relies on a simplified pilot and maintenance experience to work
• Create new business models
  • Design has a large impact on the shift from products to services
  • Build relationships with people vs. selling them products
  • This shifts cost models, revenue models, etc.
• New application for technology
• New ways of connecting to customers
• Develop new partner relationships
  • Example: Kraft’s redesign of their supplier partner process created and additional 50 million dollar difference with one supplier alone

So what is Design Thinking?

• It’s a human-centered approach to innovation.
• Being human-centered is unique to design, Designers think about people first, then the business second. The opposite is true for most companies.
• In the traditional Venn diagram of People (desirable), Business (viable) & Technical (feasible), design thinking solves the problem from the People perspective
• Design thinking is supported by a rich set of tools, processes, roles, and environments. Designers work like craftsmen. They know when to use the right tool at the right time.
• There are 3 important phases for design thinking: Inspiration, Ideation, Implementation

Inspiration

• Everything hinges on inspiration. We need new insights to drive innovation.
• The right way to get inspired is to get out into the real world: use the world as a source of inspiration not just validation.
• Great designers are great observers of life. They get out there to look, listen, and try.
• What’s the difference between design research and market research? Predictive market research is used by marketing to gauge the size of an opportunity. It is primarily a validation tool. Design research is an inspiration tool.
• Designers gain empathy by looking at the world through other people's eyes in order to understand things at social, cultural, cognitive, emotional, and physical levels.
• Designers often look at analogous situations for inspiration. For example, when doing research for surgery procedures an IDEO spent a day with a Nascar pit crew.
• Insights come from extreme users and not from center of the bell curve. There’s little inspiration in average usage.
• Kids are extreme users. They magnify issues that we have as adults.

Ideation

• Building to think is essence of the prototyping process.
• Prototypes can be very rough but they should always enable engagement & discussion. Prototypes don't have to be physical but do need to be tangible.
• Designers might go though hundreds of iterations of prototypes so they need to be quick and easy to build.
• McDonald's prototypes service models and scenarios in a giant reconfigurable lab in Chicago.
• Prototyping makes a difference. Mcdonald’s saw kiosk usage rise from 7% to 90% after IDEO ideation process.

Implementation

• Most things fail to get out because they can't make it through the organization.
• Storytelling helps develop & express ideas to get them through organizations.
• Stores can connect multiple stakeholders.
• Stories can be films, presentations, physical experiences, or more.
• IDEO often takes over a floor of a building and turns it into the strategy.
• Sometimes, the story can be end the result: it creates new knowledge.
• If designers tell story the right way, they can have enormous influence through design.

Managing Innovation

• Most management teams are focused on growing a business.
• As a result, designers need to know how to create growth from design thinking: extend, mange, create, adapt.
• For new offerings & new users: create new markets, disrupt markets
• For new offerings & existing users: extend brands, share of wallet, leverage users
• Revolutionary, Evolutionary, and Incremental should be managed as a portfolio.
• Revolutionary can make its way into Incremental & Evolutionary innovation
• Valuable metrics: time to first prototype; portfolio outcomes; net promoter (effectiveness of how it impacts brand)

Design thinking is a human centered approach to problem solving. Its a process built from People (inspiration gained by looking & listening to them), Prototyping (ideating quickly to make things real), and Stories (getting things implemented by selling compelling narratives not "concepts").

Tags: design vision, IDEO, strategy, prototypes, consistency

Originally posted by LukeW from Functioning Form: Interface Design
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 30, 2007 at 02:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Massachusetts is maintaining many of the underpinnings of its innovation economy according to the 2006 Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy. However, the state is at risk of losing ground in key technology clusters--continued sub-par job growth, relatively low rates of commercialization and high-tech start-ups, and relatively high housing costs contribute to an exodus of younger workers and graduates that seriously undermines the potential for economic expansion.  Positive signs include success in attracting R&D dollars, healthy patenting activity, and robust corporate sales figures.  Other positive signs include:

·         Positive job growth in the software cluster for the first time since 2001; 

·         Attracting a large share of total venture capital investment at 11%, second only to CA, as well as attracting a high-share of total federal R&D investment at 6%;

·         Best in class in educational attainment, with approximately 37% of the population holding a bachelors degree or higher; and,

·         Manufacturing exports represent a high share of GSP and are growing.

The key problem areas identified in the report:

Lag in job growth compared with other Leading Technology States

Lags its competitor states with negative job growth in key industry clusters, including Diversified Industrial Support, Financial Services, Healthcare Technology, and Software & Communications Services.

Insufficient capture of downstream economic benefits

Massachusetts created 12.8 new high-tech businesses per 100 high-tech establishments, compared to 14.6 in California and 14.1 in Virginia. Massachusetts firms attract the smallest percentage of venture capital to “expansion stage” companies that are poised for maturation and growth. Massachusetts share of total US venture capital investment has declined for the second straight year.

   

Lack of affordable housing contributes to ongoing population loss

Massachusetts has the smallest percentage of the most affordable class of housing of any of the Leading Technology States.

The Index, published annually since 1997, was developed by the John Adams Innovation Institute, the economic development arm of MTC.  The Index tracks ten key industry clusters and benchmarks Massachusetts performance against nine other Leading Technology States. For more information, visit www.masstech.org.

Originally posted by Egils Milbergs from Accelerating Innovation
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 30, 2007 at 02:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although 90 percent of senior executives rate innovation as a top strategic priority, almost half admit to being dissatisfied with the return they get from their innovation dollars, according to a survey by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) of more than 1,000 decision makers. A key reason is that most companies confuse ideas or inventions with innovation. True innovation must lead—directly or indirectly—to increased profits. And even when companies recognize this, they're generally unsure how to determine which innovation efforts are on the road to payback, and which are destined to become "cash traps"—projects that drain valuable resources that could be better invested elsewhere. That's according to Jim Andrew and Hal Sirkin, BCG senior vice presidents and coauthors of the new book, Payback: Reaping the Rewards of Innovation (Harvard Business School Press, January 9, 2007).

According to Jim Andrews, “Even at the best companies, up to a third of all innovation initiatives are wasting cash and human resources and will continue to do so. Cash traps in innovation portfolios are more damaging—and prevalent—than most companies realize." The challenge is to identify which projects need to be curtailed so ones with real potential can be focused on and brought to market faster—with a higher probability of success. According to Payback, the cash curve offers leaders a way to create a picture of any innovation effort—a "payback profile" of an innovation and its critical stages from the same perspective. The cash curve takes into account the four key variables that contribute to—or prevent—payback: start-up costs, speed to market, speed to scale, and support costs. "We call these variables the 'Four S's', and they're the levers that innovation leaders can use to fine-tune efforts. By analyzing these variables on a cash curve, companies can clearly see when to kill an effort, when to invest more, or when to speed up or delay a launch”

The "Right" Innovation Metrics Are Also Critical

Measuring innovation is another issue that companies struggle with. "Most companies are looking for a 'silver bullet' metric to help them predict or force a perception of profitability—or they're using a collection of metrics that aren't very valuable. What they really need is a set of metrics that provides not only a picture of the outputs of innovation—cash payback and indirect benefits—but also inputs, including time, money and people, as well as the overall effectiveness of the innovation process," says Jim Andrew.

Originally posted by Egils Milbergs from Accelerating Innovation
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 30, 2007 at 02:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Innovation as a concept is easily accepted and quickly endorsed. Moving from a concept to an actual working process is slightly more difficult. I believe one of the reasons that innovation is simple to talk about but harder to put into practice has to do with location.

Management teams want innovation because innovation can bring differentiation in the market and organic growth, which are two strong drivers of profit and market attention. The challenge that innovation presents is: where should it be done, and who should be doing it? I think there are at least five different "locations" for innovation, and by identifying these locations we can begin to determine the tools and techniques necessary for each location to thrive, and who should be working on ideas in each location.

Now, these "locations" as you may have guessed by now are virtual, but very important. Just as a company has a formal org chart and the "real" organizational power chart, innovation can exist in a number of different virtual spaces. Let's look at a few of those now.

Within R&D and/or a product group. This is the natural, comfortable place for innovation to reside. In fact in most firms it already lives in this space, so the management talk about innovation is either reinforcing the existing innovation or threatening this team by expanding innovation outside of this "location". The processes for innovation - at least incremental product innovation - already exist.

There are challenges to defining innovation at just this level or location. Innovation should be about more than simply defining the next iteration of a product, and the R&D teams and product teams clearly don't hold the monopoly on insight into new services or business models, which should also be fair game for innovation. So, while this location is a good one, I doubt it is the only valid "location" for most firms.

Across product groups. What happens when you company needs to innovate across lines of business or product groups. Perhaps there's a large opportunity to innovate by combining several of your products or solutions into a new "whole product" for the customer. Where does that innovation reside? Now there are suddenly two or more cohabitating groups with different approaches and different compensation models trying to work together on innovations in a virtual space. This becomes a bit more tricky and may demonstrate a need for a center of excellence where the teams from different business units or product groups can work together more effectively - away from each others' teams and turf. Again, we still are really only focused here on product innovation, although crossing corporate functional boundaries may raise the awareness of service or process innovation.

White Space innovation. Who is responsible for innovating in the "white space" of your organization? Should each product group and/or R&D team work to create new products in the spaces where your products or offerings are missing today? Who sets the direction and strategic vision for the white space innovation? If created, who will own and manage the products or services for the white space? Location is not just an issue of strategic intent, it is also an issue of ownership. Ideas conceived for the "white space" that do not have ownership in a product group or line of business over time may be accurate but will fail, as corporate teams simply don't have the experience or bandwidth to identify, own and grow a product or service innovation.

Innovation between a business and a partner. Who is responsible for this "location" - a virtual space between your company and one or more business partners who have agreed to innovate around a new product or service? Who owns the responsibility for the investment, the business development, the legal headaches necessary to work with people who are partners or possible competition? This is a very important "location" as few firms have the footprint to cover a wide range of capabilities, technologies and markets, so partnering will often make sense and add a lot of value, if you can get the groundrules established. Ownership of the idea and the product or service long term is obviously a big issue. Who decides where the idea resides?

Innovation in the open. If you've followed the concepts of open innovation to their logical conclusion, you'll know that truly open innovation - user or customer generated ideas and content - are where innovation is heading. Who in your firm manages the interaction between your customers and your prospects and their ideas and content? I think we can predict fairly soon that there will be people in every business who are responsible for helping to shape and manage customer innovations. In our area, there are several small photolithography shops where anyone with an idea can create a small prototype of the product they've invented. If prototyping becomes mass market, anyone with an idea can present a reasonable facsimile to any firm. Will yours be ready to review the new products and services and content generated by "average" folks?

In each of these areas, the classic management issues are very different. Span of control, management communication and direction, ownership, control and strategic alignment change dramatically as we move from "location" to "location". As your firm considers its innovation strategy, tools, processes and methods, look first at the "locations" where innovation is important. The locations will dictate the changes necessary for innovation success.

Originally posted by Jeffrey Phillips from Innovate on Purpose
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 30, 2007 at 02:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

New research claims that successful inventors become less creative over time.

R&D managers interested in increasing the creative output of their departments should be aware that successful inventors could become less creative over time, warn the authors.

In their study, they find that inventors who have experienced success in their efforts to patent their inventions continue to generate new patents but, over time these patents tend to be less divergent from their previous work. This finding implies that allocating more resources to the most prolific inventors may increase the productivity of their department, but it may diminish the extent to which their creative output reflects the exploration of new areas of research.

The negative effects of success on creativity can be managed, say Professors Audia and Goncalo, by encouraging inventors to collaborate with one another and by making "exploration" an explicit and desirable organizational goal.

My friend Kris Kimel who runs the IdeaFestival put the conference together for to solve exactly this kind of problem. New ideas can come from anywhere, and it's important to occasionally "play around" and explore other areas of knowledge. In a world that changes rapidly, myopic innovation doesn't get you much.

Originally from Businesspundit
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 30, 2007 at 02:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to a study of global innovation conducted by French business school INSEAD, the U.S. is the world's most innovative nation by a large margin. Germany was a distant second, while the U.K., Japan and France rounded out the top five. The United Arab Emirates (#14) was the only country in the Top 15 that wasn't European, Asian or North American.

The World Business/INSEAD Innovation Index 2007, researched by Professor Soumitra Dutta and sponsored by BT, ranks nations according to their innovation performance. The ranking takes into account several categories of evaluation: institutions and policies; infrastructure; human capacity; technological sophistication; and business markets and capital. The study also factors in knowledge, competitiveness and wealth. Data for comprising the ranking was based on information provided by, among others, the World Bank and the World Economic Forum.

[image: We're #1!]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 28, 2007 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lester Craft of Innovate Forum suggests that an innovation book (Payback: Reaping the Rewards of Innovation) co-authored by two consultants at Boston Consulting Group could become the most important book about innovation in 2007:

"Here’s a prediction: One of the biggest business books of 2007 will feature innovation. That book, more than likely, will be the newly published Payback: Reaping the Rewards of Innovation, by James P. Andrew and Harold L. Sirkin. Why? A couple of reasons: First, Payback is being marketed aggressively, which indicates that the publisher, Harvard Business School Press, thinks it’s worth investing in. But more important is that the book addresses one of the most troubling aspects of innovation: failure, at so many companies, to achieve an acceptable return from innovation spending.

Payback is at the cutting edge of this problem. Its authors are senior vice presidents at The Boston Consulting Group, which, not coincidentally, has been producing some of the most important research available on the business of innovation and R&D."

Anyway, it looks like a lot of big-time executives are endorsing the book, including the chairman & CEO of SAP, the vice-chairman and CEO of Samsung Electronics, the VP of Corporate Strategy at Nokia, and the former CIO of P&G. (Let's just hope that the book is better than the 1999 Mel Gibson movie of the same name.)

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 28, 2007 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the UIE Web App Summit in Monterey, Larry Constantine discussed how processes and methods can facilitate or hinder successful design innovation:

Innovation

• Innovation is the introduction of something new. It does not have to be far out. Innovation can be incremental (going just to the edge) as long as it is makes changes that matter.
• Tiller bars were once the standard user interface control for cars. They offered legacy interaction idioms familiar to users. Should we have preserved this legacy interaction?

Tyranny of Users

• When consistency becomes our primary concern, we shift away from our primary goal: building for user needs.
• Sometimes users are given too much importance/reliance, which can lead to tyranny -particularly by legacy users.
• If you excessively listen to users, you end up replicating existing solutions or applying overly conservative designs.
• Users are vulnerable to current tastes and popular preferences.
• Don’t use testing to design a system. Use it to validate the design of a system.

Creativity

• “So easy to present solutions when you don't know how big the problem is” - Malcom Forbes
• Abstraction contributes to creativity: invites creativity & invention. Abstraction helps focus on the essence of things.
• Radical evolution: stay within status quo but with incremental yet significant alterations.
• Can be guided by new applications of already existing skills guided by real world actions.
• Creativity is in part a solution to a problem.
• Small details make a difference, They add up to innovation.

Putting Innovation into Practice

• Evaluation: allow extra time to inspect/test (usability)
• Allow extra time for technology assessment
• Expect resistance: people often prefer awkward but familiar interfaces
• Be prepared to address legacy users and find ways to support them
• Standard solutions are virtually guaranteed to work. Breakthroughs risk breakdowns.
• Non-standards discourage copying

In Summary:

• Understand the problem space first
• Abstract & generalize
• Find creative solutions to defined problems
• Overcome obstacles & obsess over details
• Prove out novel solutions (testing)
• Implement what you designed (get it built)

Tags: innovative UIs, Web applications

Originally posted by LukeW from Functioning Form: Interface Design
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 28, 2007 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That's how one ad person sees the world, as quoted today in the NY Times ("Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad"). The average American is now exposed to about 5,000 ad messages per day, but that's not enough for an ad person who sees the world through the sights of a shotgun and the rest of us as ducks.

If all of the natural spaces in the world also prominently feature billboards, stickers or posters, that's a fait accompli to the believer in ubiquity. The common good is someone else's problem. Oh wait, that's the new exclusivity.

If radio ads meant to be played specifically for children on school buses helps put food on someone's table, or some other tired excuse, then the moral trade-off of marketing to a captive audience simply becomes ambiguous. Besides, everyone else is doing it.

A company that waterboards society and its culture with advertising is an organization that not only lacks imagination and creative skill but is probably incapable of creating or maintaining any kind of meaningful relationship.

Like a sociopath.

Originally posted by Ben McConnell from Church of the Customer Blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 28, 2007 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How much creativity is enough? Is there an optimal level of creativity for a person to have? Is it possible to be “too creative?” Is it true, or a myth, that creative people can be difficult to manage?

Creativity generates Ideas. Ideas generate Innovations. Innovations generate New Products. New Products make company successful in the long term. A company can never have too much creativity. Creativity can give rise to new products that may fail. However, without creativity, there are no new products. Creativity and Innovation define the future of any business. The day creativity is thought to be enough, the company stops innovating, stops creating great new products, becomes complacent and eventually ceases to exist.

Too much creativity or optimal level of creativity depends on the company, its culture and its individuals. Creativity in a corporate environment needs to be channelled to produce great products. Employing creative individuals in specific business units such as marketing, desktop publishing, web business, advertising or new product development makes business sense. An optimal level of creativity can be achieved within the organization as a whole, where the appropriate guidelines and frameworks are in place for creative individuals and their ideas, and to convert such creativity into viable business solutions. If the individual is employed in a role that requires creativity, there cannot be too much of it – however a defined structure that sets boundaries, such as market needs, financial constraints, resource availability, project checklist and milestones, etc. can drive measurable, sustainable and innovative results. When the business risks grow, a methodical framework or business process needs to be implemented to translate creative ideas into viable business enterprises.

An experienced manager knows how to manage creativity and creative individuals without coming in the way of generating new ideas. Creative individuals have the innate ability to visualize the end product; however, at times this is also coupled with the complexity to execute on a plan to get there. The key is to provide the creative individuals a platform to be creative, and lead their ideas into markets. Surrounding creative individuals with the appropriate infrastructure and resources to convert their ideas into workable solutions can be very rewarding and profitable. On the contrary, leaving them to their own devices can potentially result in chaos, delayed delivery, under delivery on commitments, overspending and incomplete end results.

Creative individuals can tend to be independent, expressive and passionate. Their mindset stems from the cultural differences between highly creative and operational organizational norms. For example, creative individuals thrive on generating ideas, and asking the "what if" questions. Some managers may prefer efficiency to unproven ideas and rhetorical questions. A manager can nurture their entrepreneurial spirit, and yet manage them well in group settings and staff meetings. There is also the possibility of expansive dialogs and debates, especially when a manager rejects an idea or two from a creative individual. This is perhaps the most challenging aspect of managing a creative individual: how to say "No" to certain ideas that may make compelling sense to the individual?

Creativity is paramount to the success of any business. Creativity drives Ideas. Ideas drive Innovations. Innovations drive New Products and Markets. Creativity And Innovation drive business.

References:

eCornell: Leading Through Creativity

Originally posted by Sanjay Dalal from Creativity And Innovation Driving Business
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 28, 2007 at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The covers to Penguin’s Great Ideas books (red series 1 & blue series 2) are sweet: minimal color (black and one spot color), classic styling, pretty illustrations, and debossed printing.

 

With publishing companies shaking in their boots over digital publishing, this is a great example of how a company can differentiate by using a product’s “realness.” These are classic books that look classic. The kind you want to keep on your shelf for years to come. A PDF can’t compete with that.

New ways to judge books by their covers discusses the Penguin books and why more publishers may start looking to design as a differentiator.

It began in 2004 with Great Ideas, a collection of political and philosophical polemics. The project had a small budget and its design was entrusted to a recent graduate, David Pearson. His brief was to produce a coherent series of paperbacks selling for 3.99 each. Dressing each cover with a typographic style typical of the time and spirit of the text, Pearson limited printing to two colors - black and burgundy - on uncoated paper, leaving him with enough money for a few decorative details. Great Ideas won numerous design awards, and Penguin sold two million books. “Some were bought by people who wanted accessible versions of the text, and some by people who liked the packaging,” says Stoddart.

You can also read more about the Great Ideas design at Eye Magazine’s “Type-only Penguins sell a million” shock.

Some other interesting Penguin book covers, past and present:
Penguin Graphic Classics
70 Years of Penguin Design
Penguin books at Design Museum

Originally posted by Matt from Signal vs. Noise
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 21, 2007 at 11:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

link to PDF of NY Times article

The New York Times Sunday Business reports on IDEO's approach to spacial and enviromental design and the 'Smart Space' group. They take on projects ranging from hotels, office space to redevelopment of urban space and take an innovative approach.

They start with a 'deep dive'; a process involving Smart Space designers, anthroplogists and researchers to build understanding of what users really think and what really underlies their motivations and actions.

They design for activity as much as for space. This is the really valuable angle that IDEO are bringing. There processes are drawing out insights to create informed strategy and concepts that can be prototyped and tested. They can then take the most appropriate design direction for the projects and work with architects and designers to get it implemented.

It's a good process and current reports indicate the results speak for themselves - see the article.

Originally from Business Innovation, Brand Strategy, User Experience, Interaction Design, Smart Space
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 21, 2007 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As much as people joke about the US belligerently ranting about being #1 in just about everything...it's a fact that "we're #1" on the World's Most Innovative Nations list. The World Business/INSEAD Innovation Index 2007, researched by Professor Soumitra Dutta and sponsored by BT, ranks nations on innovation performance, focusing on institutions and policies, infrastructure, human capacity, technological sophistication, and business markets and capital. "Germany was a distant second, while the U.K., Japan and France rounded out the top five. The United Arab Emirates (#14) was the only country in the Top 15 that wasn't European, Asian or North American."

via business innovation insider

...

Originally from core77.com's design blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 21, 2007 at 11:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hawaii governor Linda Lingle announced a sweeping new innovation initiative for the state. The broad-based initiative is intended as a way to increase the state's participation in the technology-driven global economy. Among other things, the new innovation initiative includes:

* State support for a life sciences and biotech research facility and technology incubator;

* A digital media center for the development of a local film and digital media sector

* A new program to build the technical and business skills of Hawaii's artists in the music industry;

* A $100 million professionally-managed Hawaii Innovation Fund.

In addition, Hawaii will upgrade its wireless and broadband Internet services and engage in a comprehensive new digitization program. As Governor Lingle points out, innovation is now an important driver of economic competitiveness for the state:

"Hawaii's continued prosperity and ability to improve our standard of living and way of life over the long-term requires reducing our dependence on land as the chief driver of economic development. We need to focus on developing our people, recognizing that our future economic success and sustainability depends upon innovation and new ideas that will enable us to create more high-paying quality jobs that capitalize on people's skills and talents."

[image: Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 21, 2007 at 11:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Financial Times, Lucy Kellaway highlights some of the worst neologisms of 2006 that were created by some of the best and the brightest minds in business. The worst neologism of the year is from advertising agency BBDO, which came up with a new concept called Procrealligence, a three-way marriage of pro-activity, creativity and intelligence. As BBDO explains: “Procrealligence is the foundation of our positioning, our method for attaining the highest standard of ‘work’.” BBDO is not the only company playing around with new words. In past years, A-b glöbâl combined creativity and innovation to come up with creovation™ and then, later, combined integrity and ethics to come up with integethics™. Also, General Electric famously combined ecology and imagination to create ecomagination.

Do you have any favorite neologisms related to creativity and innovation? If so, please send me an email or leave a comment with this blog entry.

[image: State of Mind by the Siberian surrealist Alexander Lyamkin]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 21, 2007 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Do you like to be more creative? Wouldn’t it be great with a simple guide that could help you increase your creativity? It actually exists. At the interesting site ChangeThis a lot of clever manifestos are available as pdf’s. I would like to highlight one called How to be Creative. It is written by Hugh MacLeod who is a brand consultant, copywriter and cartoonist and his manifesto consists of ideas for creativity in both words and cartoons. Well worth reading. You can download it here. And what’s good it’s totally free (as all pdf’s from ChangeThis). And by the way, the people behind ChangeThis have a political slant, they are against demagoguery, dishonesty, shortsightedness, superstition, fundamentalism, unequal rights and violent argument. Sounds good to me!

Thanks to Design  Sojourn

Ping Intressant.se

Andra bloggar om: kreativitet, marknadsföring

Originally posted by David Carlson from David Report blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 21, 2007 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How do you take a negative situation and see it for it's value versus dwelling on the potential harm?

That's what asset-based thinking is all about... Shift your thinking to focus on the assets of a situation (what you have) versus deficit-based thinking (what you don't have). "Small shifts make seismic differences."

The authors of "Change The Way You See Everything: Through Asset-Based Thinking" Kathy Cramer and Hank Wasiak have put together a handy bookmark featuring an asset-based thinking (ABT) alphabet. For each letter of the alphabet they've identified the deficit-based way to think about something... and the asset-based way to think about it...

My favorites include... shifting from Beat-Up to Build-Up, Gotcha to Generous and Nay-Sayer to Nurturer.

[right-click to view larger image.
Print, clip, and bring with you to meetings]

Brainstorming - The ABT Alphabet is helpful when brainstorming or when ideas are being pitched. Instead of immediately jumping on why it may NOT work... Pause before you pounce, and try to build the idea up using ABT.

Cynics in your office? - While ABT isn't specifically designed as the remedy for cynicism, it has the power to deflate a cynic attack... Most cynics seem to have the energy to be a "devil's advocate" - use this list to challenge them channel that energy for good versus evil.

Originally posted by Paul Williams from Idea Sandbox Blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Originally posted by DonDodge from Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Innovation guru and futurist Jim Carroll shares insights into the Ten Great Words of Innovators:

(1) Observe. Take the time to look for the key trends that will impact your organization and the industry in which you compete.

(2) Think. Analyze your observations: spend more time learning from what you see happening around you.

(3) Change. In a time of rapid change, you can’t expect to get by with what has worked in the past – you must be willing to do things differently.

(4) Dare. Have you lost your ability to take risks?

(5) Banish. Get rid of the words and phrases that steer you into inaction and indecision.

(6) Try. How many of your people have lost their ability to adapt to changing circumstances because they’ve lost their confidence?

(7) Empower. In a world of rapid change, you can’t expect that rigidly defined rules will be the appropriate response to changing circumstances.

(8) Question. Go forward with a different viewpoint by challenging assumptions and eliminating habit.

(9) Grow. Stop focusing on cutting costs – build the business instead.

(10) Do. Renew your sense of purpose, and restore your enthusiasm for the future by taking action.

Also, be sure to watch Jim's two-minute video clip that starts off with a call-to-action of "We don't need more MBAs..." It's a "best of" highlight reel of these 10 words.

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Under the radar of many foreign policy experts, China has been quietly consolidating its grip on the African continent, viewing it as a rich source of minerals and raw materials and a dumping ground for cheap products. Unlike the West, which usually attaches strings to its foreign aid packages, China is not at all hesitant about extending aid to crumbling dictatorships and impoverished states, as long as they have unfettered access to the raw materials that are fueling the Chinese economic miracle. So, how does innovation fit into all of this?

Well, on a national level, if African nations fail to innovate, they could very easily fall under the yoke of their neo-colonial Chinese masters. (see picture) Anyway, I recently read about a "grand tour of Africa" by Chinese foreign officials on Yahoo! News, and it made me realize that maybe we're thinking about China all wrong. Maybe the West is not so central to the development of China after all:

"China paid for the marble and tile parliament building soaring above the crumbling homes of this former Portuguese colony, and is also promising a dam and a military hospital — all with none of the political strings Western donors might attach. Intent on cementing ties across Africa, China is active even in impoverished Guinea-Bissau, a small nation with little industry, no oil and few exports. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing ended a two-day visit here Thursday, part of a tour that includes Chad, Benin, Central African Republic, Eritrea and Mozambique. Li arrived from Equatorial Guinea, Africa's third-largest oil producer, where he agreed to forgive about $75 million in debt.

Some nations on Li's itinerary are sources of the raw materials China's booming economy craves. Countries like Guinea-Bissau may not have much to offer today, but could in years to come. In courting them, China has turned on its head the Western aid formula that has tied public works projects to progress in good governance. "China is not like the World Bank, they don't attach all these conditions on the money," said Edmundo Vaz, a former adviser to the Guinea-Bissau Finance Ministry who now runs a bank. "The West makes us wait, but we're a poor country — we don't have time wait," he said."

As the article points out, "Africa has become a crucial part of China's growth strategy." Trade between Africa and China has grown fourfold since 2001, topping $45 billion in the first 10 months of 2006. At a summit attended by 35 African heads of state in Beijing last fall, Chinese entrepreneurs signed deals worth $1.9 billion with African governments and firms.

Interestingly, TED Global plans an innovation-themed conference in Tanzania this June: TEDGLOBAL "Africa: the next chapter". In addition, there are several blogs that focus on innovation from an African perspective, such as the Timbuktu Chronicles and Africa Unchained. (Thanks, Emeka)

[image: Chinese manager and African laborer]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In doing background research on an article I'm writing on the Future and Inter-cultural Values, I ran across an intereting piece of interdisciplinary work from the political science, cultural anthropology and sociology fields.

The Values Map above ( Inglehart and Baker (2000), visually illustrates the strong correlation of values in different cultures. You will notice that countries are clustered in a remarkably predictable way.

These world-wide Value Surveys were designed to provide a comprehensive measurement of all major areas of human concern, from religion to politics to economic and social life. From this we see that two dimensions dominate the picture: (1) Traditional/ Secular-rational and (2) Survival/Self-expression values.

"These two dimensions explain more than 70 percent of the cross-national variance in a factor analysis of ten indicators-and each of these dimensions is strongly correlated with scores of other important orientations." note researchers.

The Traditional/Secular-rational values dimension reflects the contrast between societies in which religion is very important and those in which it is not.

A wide range of other orientations are closely linked with this dimension. Societies near the traditional pole emphasize the importance of parent-child ties and deference to authority, along with absolute standards and traditional family values, and reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride, and a nationalistic outlook. Societies with secular-rational values have the opposite preferences on all of these topics."

"The second major dimension of cross-cultural variation is linked with the transition from industrial society to post-industrial societies-which brings a polarization between Survival and Self-expression values. The unprecedented wealth that has accumulated in advanced societies during the past generation means that an increasing share of the population has grown up taking survival for granted. Thus, priorities have shifted from an overwhelming emphasis on economic and physical security toward an increasing emphasis on subjective well-being, self-expression and quality of life."

Inglehart and Baker (2000) find evidence that orientations have shifted from Traditional toward Secular-rational values, in almost all industrial societies. But modernization, is not linear-when a society has completed industrialization and starts becoming a knowledge society, it moves in a new direction, from Survival values toward increasing emphasis on Self-expression values.

"A central component of this emerging dimension involves the polarization between Materialist and Postmaterialist values, reflecting a cultural shift that is emerging among generations who have grown up taking survival for granted. Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, tolerance of diversity and rising demands for participation in decision making in economic and political life. These values also reflect mass polarization over tolerance of outgroups, including foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality. The shift from survival values to self-expression values also includes a shift in child-rearing values, from emphasis on hard work toward emphasis on imagination and tolerance as important values to teach a child. And it goes with a rising sense of subjective well-being that is conducive to an atmosphere of tolerance, trust and political moderation. Finally, societies that rank high on self-expression values also tend to rank high on interpersonal trust."

"This produces a culture of trust and tolerance, in which people place a relatively high value on individual freedom and self-expression, and have activist political orientations. These are precisely the attributes that the political culture literature defines as crucial to democracy."

Questions to ponder.....?

• Is it me or does it seem to more people that Canada, the USA and Russia are slipping and backsliding along some of these value spectra?
• How will values change and in what direction will they go, as post communist countries go through their transition periods into a market or semi-market economy?
• How often do values shift & change? Every decade? Is it accelerating?
• Are there noticable generation to generation (G2G) changes visible every decade?
• Is there a significant correlation and link between genetics, culture and happiness?

© 2005-2006

Originally posted by SmartEconomy from Smart Economy
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love patterns, especially emerging and evolving patterns.  In this context, anomalies are troubling, but always an opportunity for learning. For me, the Gap represented one of those anomalies for many years.

Almost a decade ago, I detected an intriguing pattern regarding the unbundling and rebundling of firms (purchase unfortunately required). Those of you have been following me for a while know the drill – I believe that most companies are an unnatural bundle of three very different types of businesses:

• Infrastructure management businesses – high volume, routine processing businesses – think of managing a logistics network or manufacturing assembly operations
• Product innovation and commercialization businesses – coming up with creative new products or services, getting them to market quickly and accelerating adoption
• Customer relationship businesses – getting to know a set of customers extremely well and using that knowledge to be more helpful in configuring tailored bundles of products and services to meet the needs of individual customers

These three business types have very different economics, skill sets and even cultures, yet they are tightly integrated into most companies today.  The first wave of outsourcing can be understood as the systematic carving out of the infrastructure management businesses from companies, but we’re just on the cusp of a second wave that will unbundle product innovation and commercialization businesses from customer relationship businesses. 

That’s the short story. Of course, the pace and trajectory of unbundling (and related rebundling) differs across industries and geographies – the patterns are complex and fractal.

Take retailing as an example.  Most retailers don’t own product businesses – they are primarily customer relationship businesses (merchandising) and infrastructure management businesses (store operations). When I first wrote about the broader unbundling pattern in the late 1990s – there was one big anomaly that many people kept pointing out to me – the Gap.  In the late 1990s, the Gap was a real highflier, with a share price that rose from about $10 to about $50 over a five year period.  It could do no wrong. It was taking the retail world by storm.

And it seemed to fly directly in the face of the pattern I outlined above.  Here was a highly successful retailer that was not unbundling, it was in fact adding a third business type – product innovation and commercialization – to the two business types that retailers typically operated.  I can still recall the triumphant smirks of executives who would cite the Gap and say “OK, John, what do you have to say about that?”

At the time, I said that it was an anomaly whose success hinged on getting the product innovation and commercialization business right – at the time, they focused on basics like khaki pants and wearable tops so it was not as risky as the more fashion-oriented part of the apparel business – but that trying to manage all three business types simultaneously would make it very hard for the Gap to sustain its success.  Of course, that came across as a lame attempt to downplay a troubling exception to the pattern I was describing.

Well, starting in 2000 the Gap began to hit the wall and it never really recovered.  Earlier this week, the company announced that it was weighing its strategic alternatives, including a possible sale of the company.  Rumors are swirling about private equity firms discussing how to team up to take the company private.

As is often the case in business, when the troubles first started to surface at the Gap, the search began for the guilty.  Mickey Drexler, the mercurial CEO of the Gap at the time and the guy who drove much of the growth of the retailer, was fired in 2002 and Paul Pressler, a well-respected executive from Disney, was brought in as CEO. Significant turnover throughout the management ranks has occurred since 2000, yet the business challenges persisted.

What if the problem is not about people, but something even more fundamental?  What if the problem stems from having to manage three very different business types in an increasingly competitive market?  When evaluating “strategic options”, one can only hope that the Board of the Gap takes a hard look at the strategic option of unbundling. In many respects, this would be a “back to the future” play for the Gap – the retailer’s first wave of growth, before it started adding its own in-house apparel designers, was driven by its aggressive promotion of jeans designed and made by Levi Strauss. Rather than shrinking the business, this unbundling may actually provide a platform for another wave of profitable growth.

Now, of course, retailers can still guess wrong in terms of fashion trends even if they do not have their own product design business.  But it is easier to guess wrong if you have your own designers who often become locked into certain styles.  Retailers with their own designers start to look inward to their designers for insight about trends, rather than interacting with a broad range of independent designers who are likely to have much more diverse views of potential market opportunities.  Attracting and retaining the best creative talent in-house also can become challenging if this talent has to cope with the divergent cultures required to run infrastructure management businesses and customer relationship businesses as well as product businesses.

But the Gap should go beyond simply shedding its product business.  The company should re-think what it means to be in the customer relationship business.  Retailers pride themselves on being in the customer relationship business, but when you take a hard look at their operations, most large retailers are really much more focused on the infrastructure management business.

Let’s take a simple, yet very revealing, indicator of business focus.  What are the relevant metrics of profitability?  Most retailers focus relentlessly on profitability by store and, even more granularly, profitability per foot of shelf – these are facilities-based measures of profitability.  True customer relationship businesses focus on profitability by customer, yet few retailers (with the possible exception of some direct marketers) even have a clue of their profitability by customer.  Ask them which 20% of their customers generate 80% of their profitability and you get a blank stare. Ask them about customer churn rates and they start looking for a way to change the subject.

Or, take a stroll down the aisles of your nearest “big box” retailer.  Try to find someone to talk to in order to get a suggestion for a product you need or to get a question about a product answered. Good luck. It is pretty hard to talk about being in a customer relationship business when you are not available to talk to a customer. Big box retailers are the epitome of an infrastructure management business – reducing operations to high volume, routine processing activities with as few people as possible.  They dream of even eliminating the cashiers and automating the check-out process.

Of course, merchandisers live or die based on their ability to anticipate the evolving needs of the market.  Some retailers have become very sophisticated in understanding certain customer segments – teens, techies, suburban soccer Moms, etc. In this sense, they are very customer focused. But that’s a pretty shallow notion of customer relationship – all businesses have to do that to stay in business.

True customer relationship businesses set a much higher bar.  Deep, lasting, trust-based relationships with customers – the hallmark of a customer relationship business – are generally built one customer at a time.  They require the investment to learn about each customer’s needs and then they require the skills to take that understanding and turn it around into relevant, timely suggestions regarding products and services that might be most meaningful for that customer.  Think of a good Mom and Pop retailer where the clerk knows you by name and greets you with a suggestion about an interesting new product when you walk in the door.

Ah, but that’s not scalable, the skeptic will say.  Ever heard of Amazon? They do something pretty much like that for millions of customers.  Ah, but that’s on the Internet and not in a physical store, the skeptic responds.  True, but that’s one of the problems – with few exceptions, we still draw hard lines between physical facilities and virtual services.

Now, this is not just an opportunity; it is rapidly becoming a necessity, shaped by the shift from shelf space scarcity to attention scarcity, something I have written about frequently.  In the face of this shift, retailers have two choices.  They can become vast, automated warehouses with a high return on assets – in other words, infrastructure management businesses.  Or they can find creative ways to build real relationships with customers in ways that significantly increase the return on attention for their customers – in other words, customer relationship businesses.

This is the vast blue ocean that awaits enterprising retailers.  It will require extraordinary innovation, inspired perhaps by examples of open distribution in unlikely places like India (not in conventional retailing, which is generally very inefficient, but rather in such unexpected arenas as financial services and diesel engines).

As the Gap assesses its strategic options, it might start by asking the most fundamental question of all – what business are we really in?  There’s a lot of money to be made by getting the answer to that question right.

Originally posted by John Hagel from Edge Perspectives with John Hagel
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Glenn Hubbard has an excellent article in Strategy+Business about the effects of American management on productivity and economic growth. Free registration is required, and this article is worth your time to sign up.

Through the lens of economics, management is, at heart, a choice made by each firm. To alter that choice is costly; when a firm changes management, it requires additional personnel, time, attention, and other resources. The decision makers who lead the firm must trade off these costs against the benefits they expect. That is why, if all other factors are equal, the new management practices most likely to be adopted are those that promise the greatest cost reduction. In capital-intensive companies, these tend to be those practices that most improve the efficiency of plant and equipment. In companies where highly skilled workers are integral to a firm's financial performance, practices related to incentives and human capital will probably be perceived as more beneficial.

If this theory is correct, then in a knowledge-intensive economy, the firms with better practices for process techniques, goal setting, performance evaluation, and human resources management should be found, by reasonably objective observers, to exhibit generally better performance. And indeed that correlation was found in recent research by economists Nick Bloom of Stanford University and John Van Reenen of the London School of Economics.

The article also references The Good Life: How Managers Made the Modern World, and this paper about management practices across firms and countries. If the assertion is true that management has this much power, then whatever is being taught in our business schools will have a significant impact on the future of this country. That's scary.

Originally from Businesspundit
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 13, 2007 at 10:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Innovation is the hot topic of the day in the business world, and it seems that nearly every company in nearly every industry is at least paying lip service to the importance of innovation. But have some market niches and product categories reached the end of innovation?

The other day, I happened to stumble across a consulting report on the Food Navigator website, which discussed innovation within the $3 billion "sandwich spread" market category. The idea of talking about mayo, ketchup and mustard may seem a bit, well, banal, but the example really highlights the difficulty of innovation within such a narrowly-defined market niche. What do you do when ketchup, mustard and mayo control a combined 99% of the market category? What company in its right mind would spend millions of dollars on R&D to find a disruptive sandwich spread category to rival the Big Three of ketchup, mustard and mayo? Anyway, here's the excerpt from the consulting report:

"Lack of innovation and consumer demand for healthier products has resulted in a stagnant US market for once popular sandwich spreads such as ketchup, mustard and mayonnaise, according to a new report. Published by Packaged Facts, the report reveals the sandwich spread market remains stuck at $3 billion, and is likely to continue struggling... In 2005, mayonnaise dominated the market with a share of 59%, followed by ketchup and mustard with shares of 25% and 16% respectively. And although the sandwich spread market declined by 2% as compared to 2004, all three categories have more or less maintained their respective market shares.

According to the report, there have only been 36 new product introductions in the category between June 2005 and June 2006 - most of which were launched by smaller players in the market – and this resulted in “little hope” of driving substantial market growth. However, touting the health benefits of some sandwich spreads specifically formulated to meet the needs of health-conscious consumers, such as lycopene-rich ketchup and low-fat mayonnaise, have helped to stave off further market decline. Similarly upscale, gourmet, and organic versions of the popular spreads have helped to renew interest in the market as well."

According to the report, big name-brand American companies are desperate to boost sales of sandwich spreads. (Back in the day, we called 'em condiments) They are experimenting with ‘healthier-for-you' spreads, ethnic-inspired spreads and alcohol-infused spreads. (Memo to self: Go to the supermarket and buy some of these alcohol-infused condiments!)

What do you think? Have we reached the end of innovation in the "sandwich spread" market category? (Actually, this is a bit of a trick question, since I think the "sandwich spread" category is entirely too narrow a market niche. These companies need to develop a Blue Ocean Strategy and re-define their market category entirely. Otherwise, they will be stuck trying to make incremental improvements that will have very little impact on the overall market category.)

[image: The double-fisted Mr. Hot Dog with ketchup and mustard]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 12, 2007 at 12:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the world's experts on procrastination has finally published some of his key findings. I'm interested in this because I've always seemed a little ADD and I struggle to focus. The weird thing is, the more I do focus, the better I get at focusing. I usually go through spurts of 2-3 months where I avoid multitasking and am extremely productive. Then, inevitably, I have a day that is a little too busy and I break back into my old habits. I multitask, I become less productive, and I find it hard to ever catch up on my work or to break out of that mindset. Once I reach a point of being totally overwhelmed, I shut off IM and email so that I can get my work done, and I get back into the habit of being focused and disciplined. It's very difficult for me, and always feels a little unnatural at first, but I am overwhelmingly more productive.

The conclusions of this researcher seem to match my experience.

Steel says motivational failures such as difficulty in sticking to diets and exercise regimes - frequently the focus of New Year's resolutions - are related to procrastination because impulsiveness is often at the root of the failure. "Temptations that are close at hand are difficult to resist. Addicts often relapse after returning from treatment facilities because drugs and alcohol become easily available and daily habits reassert themselves. Or we load up on bread in the restaurant before the meal is served. Or we check our email 10 times an hour instead of completing a project."

The good news is that willpower has an unusual capacity. "The old saying is true: 'Whether you believe you can or believe you can't, you're probably right'," Steel says. "And as you get better at self control, your expectancy about whether you can resist goes up and thus improves your ability to resist."

The problem is that nagging feeling that I may miss something. It makes it hard not to stay connected to everything as much as possible. I have to remind myself that solitude has benefits.

Originally from Businesspundit
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 12, 2007 at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Originally posted by GuyKawasaki from How to Change the World
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 12, 2007 at 12:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Braingle.com:

When we are confronted with a problem, we typically look for a solution by thinking about past problems that we have encountered.

Because a certain solution worked last time, we are confident that it is the best. This is uncreative thinking.

A creative thinker thinks about the problem from many different angles. This gives them a number of possible solutions to choose from, which helps them find a unique elegant solution.

The next time you are confronted with a problem, even a very tiny one, instead of jumping to the first obvious solution, take a step back and see if you can find several alternatives. At first this is going to be difficult to do, but with practice you will be able to come up with many alternative solutions to your daily problems.

Here’s an exercise to help you practice this technique.

Imagine that you are a detective. Try to come up with different possible causes for the following situation:

You pass a man on the street who is wearing two different shoes.

Here’s some alternate solutions I came up with.

1. The man broke his eyeglasses and is unable to see the difference.

2. There was a power outage when the man got dressed for work.

3. The man lost a wager with a co-worker and has to wear the different shoes all day.

4. The man has a bunion on one foot and the ‘other’ shoe is more comfortable.

5. The man’s dog chewed up the mates to both shoes.

Now, it’s your turn. Try to come up with alternate possibilities for the following situation:

You return to your car to see the windshield broken and an apple sitting on the seat.

(Post your alternatives in the comments section.)

Photo by romychamo.

Originally posted by Rich from Business Opportunities Weblog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 12, 2007 at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm thrilled to share my Manifesto for Experimentation, which was released today and published by Change This.

For those of you who don't know about Change This, shame on you. It's just the most unbelievable repository of passion, vision and thought leadership and for these 3 reasons, it was an honor to be able to contribute. I want to thank the folks over at Change This for the job they did in terms of the art and creative direction...as well as for the opportunity.

Take a gander, download the manifesto, pass it along, spread the word and CHANGE the status quo...by embracing a culture and methodology of experimentation, risk taking, constant learning and new marketing.

Originally posted by Joseph Jaffe from Jaffe Juice
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 12, 2007 at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found ten easy steps in the Seth Godin blog about how to grow and to stand out, how to get noticed, make a difference and have a shot at the big time. To good not to be repeated…

Here’s what to do:

1. Understand the urgency of the situation. Half-measures simply won’t do. The only way to grow is to abandon your strategy of doing what you did yesterday, but better. Commit.

2. Remarkable doesn’t mean remarkable to you. It means remarkable to me. Am I going to make a remark about it? If not, then you’re average, and average is for losers.

3. Being noticed is not the same as being remarkable. Running down the street naked will get you noticed, but it won’t accomplish much. It’s easy to pull off a stunt, but not useful.

4. Extremism in the pursuit of remarkability is no sin. In fact, it’s practically a requirement. People in first place, those considered the best in the world, these are the folks that get what they want. Rock stars have groupies because they’re stars, not because they’re good looking.

5. Remarkability lies in the edges. The biggest, fastest, slowest, richest, easiest, most difficult. It doesn’t always matter which edge, more that you’re at (or beyond) the edge.

6. Not everyone appreciates your efforts to be remarkable. In fact, most people don’t. So what? Most people are ostriches, heads in the sand, unable to help you anyway. Your goal isn’t to please everyone. Your goal is to please those that actually speak up, spread the word, buy new things or hire the talented.

7. If it’s in a manual, if it’s the accepted wisdom, if you can find it in a Dummies book, then guess what? It’s boring, not remarkable. Part of what it takes to do something remarkable is to do something first and best. Roger Bannister was remarkable. The next guy, the guy who broke Bannister’s record wasn’t. He was just faster … but it doesn’t matter.

8. It’s not really as frightening as it seems. They keep the masses in line by threatening them (us) with all manner of horrible outcomes if we dare to step out of line. But who loses their jobs at the mass layoffs? Who has trouble finding a new gig? Not the remarkable minority, that’s for sure.

9. If you put it on a T-shirt, would people wear it? No use being remarkable at something that people don’t care about. Not ALL people, mind you, just a few. A few people insanely focused on what you do is far far better than thousands of people who might be mildly interested, right?

10. What’s fashionable soon becomes unfashionable. While you might be remarkable for a time, if you don’t reinvest and reinvent, you won’t be for long. Instead of resting on your laurels, you must commit to being remarkable again quite soon.

Ping Intressant.se

Andra bloggar om: kreativitet, marknadsföring, varumärkesstrategi

Originally posted by David Carlson from David Report blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 12, 2007 at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The UK patent office is attempting to jump-start innovation within the all-important 9-to-11 year-old demographic:

"The Patent Office has appointed Bell Design to roll out an interactive campaign to encourage innovation among primary school children. The campaign will be based around an interactive website and feature Aardman Animation characters Wallace & Gromit. It will aim to encourage children aged 9-11-years-old to think about innovation. The campaign will form part of a wider public agenda to move the UK towards an innovation-based economy."

Hey, you're never too young to start thinking about innovation! I'm guessing that some elementary school kids are probably more innovative than some of the CEOs at America's best companies. (However, no elementary school kid is more innovative than an American CEO of a FORTUNE 500 company when it comes to designing a golden parachute).

[image: Wallace & Gromit]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 7, 2007 at 01:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Over at Tech Web, Henry Chesbrough lays out the case for adopting an open innovation business model:

"Effective innovation increasingly means to do so openly, using transparent business models. Implementing an open business model represents a significant cultural break from most corporate traditions. Indeed, it may even seem counterintuitive -- especially for CIOs who work diligently to protect the information resources and intellectual property of their organizations.

Until recently, innovation was a function of tapping into internal intellectual resources and nurturing the business while protecting it from outside exposure or interference. Companies have fiercely guarded their patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property to leverage the most value from their own innovative efforts. Open innovation, by contrast, calls for companies to make much greater use of external ideas and technologies while sharing their unused ideas with others. This requires each company to open up its business model to let more external ideas and technology flow in and more internal knowledge flow out.

By adopting these models, organizations can bring innovations to market more quickly and less expensively, thereby securing a competitive advantage in an increasingly dynamic global economy. It's critical for CIOs to understand these models' disruptive implications and provide the infrastructure necessary for their companies to thrive in the new landscape."

For more on open innovation, be sure to check out Henry Chesbrough's new book, Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, which is a follow-up to his groundbreaking book Open Innovation.

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 7, 2007 at 01:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is some interesting news out of Carnegie Mellon about brain scans done on consumers that were about to purchase products.

This study challenges the conventional economic account of consumer purchases, which views consumers as deciding between the immediate pleasure of making a purchase and the delayed pleasures of alternative things for which the same money could be used. The results of this paper support an alternative perspective that views consumers as trading off the immediate pleasure of making a purchase against an immediate pain: the pain of forking out the money for the item. The results can explain the growing tendency of consumers to overspend when purchasing items with credit cards instead of cash, because consumers do not immediately pay for items charged to credit cards and the "pain" of the potential loss is minimized.

I must have some overactivity in the part of my brain that controls business book purchases. Maybe there will be a drug for that soon.

Originally from Businesspundit
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 7, 2007 at 01:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Originally posted by bryan chiao from Welcome to Room 116
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 7, 2007 at 01:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nowandnext.com and Future Exploration Network have collaborated in producing a map of major trends for 2007 and beyond, across ten segments: society & culture, government & politics, work & business, media & communications, science & technology, food & drink, medicine & well-being, financial services, retail & leisure, and transport & automotive.

What’s nice is that the map is released on a Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license, so if you disagree with the trends we’ve chosen or think you can improve on the map. Those of you that has followed David Report from the start knows that the power of sharing is very dear to me. More about this in my first issue of the David Report bulletin called Liberate design.

By the way - the people behind the trend map ask you not to take it too seriously… They are even talking about releasing a T-shirt if there is demand!

Click the image above to get a full size pdf of the trend map.

Ping Intressant.se

Andra bloggar om: trend, trender, 2007

Originally posted by David Carlson from David Report blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 7, 2007 at 01:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How does an organization implement one million new creative ideas each year? And become a perennial top ten profitable companies of the world. And achieve market leadership while relentlessly pursuing perfection and delivering some of the best new innovations the world has ever seen.

Welcome to Toyota’s Innovation Factory. The world knows Toyota as the car maker that produces such great brands as Camry, Lexus, Prius, Scion, Rav4 and more. For example, the introduction of the Hybrid car back in 1997 when other car makers had not even put together a design for a hybrid car, much less a concept car.

Matthew E. May, a senior University of Toyota advisor, and the author of “The Elegant Solution: Toyota's Formula for Mastering Innovation” puts forth a passionate perspective on how Toyota creates new innovations at the breakneck speed of over 2,500 new ideas implemented every day. How is this possible? Innovation at Toyota has to do with the history, foundation, guiding principles and practice.

Foundation of Elegance and Innovation

Toyota was founded by Sakichi Toyoda as a handloom company. In 1898, Toyoda created Japan’s first steam-powered loom. Toyota Motors began as Toyota Automatic Loom Works, a company whose looms were of the “highest quality, lowest cost, and easiest to use.” Sound familiar. Hence the term “Elegant Solution” which according to May is about “finding the aha solution to a problem with the greatest parsimony of effort and expense.” And May argues that at Toyota, you get elegance from creativity, simplicity, intelligence, subtlety, economy, and quality. Further, May lays the groundwork for the term Innovation, which according to David Neeleman, founder and CEO of JetBlue means: "Innovation is trying to figure out a way to do something better than it's ever been done before." Indeed. This has become one of the guiding principles at Toyota.

Guiding Principles for Driving Innovation

Three guiding principles drive Innovation and create elegant solutions at Toyota, which were originated and finessed by Toyoda:

1. The Art of Ingenuity

May asserts that in order to succeed in an ever complex business world with competing pressures to innovate amidst competitive pressures and yet manage risks and uncertainty, an individual has to be both an artist and a scientist. Ingenuity creates images of cleverness, resourcefulness, initiative, originality, inventiveness, creativity, skill and even cunning – resulting in innovation. Sound contradictory. The key is to continually ask the question: “Is there a better way?”

This is possible if the individual fully leverages their domain knowledge and expertise, continuously pursues every possible way to innovate and perfect, challenges opposition tactfully, does not accept the status quo, and uses organizational efficiencies to drive new ideas and methods. Toyota has made ingenious vehicles such as Camry, RAV4, 4-Runner, RX which have become perpetual favorites in the market place.

2. The (relentless) Pursuit of Perfection

May argues that for a business to succeed at innovation, it has to rigorously search for an optimal solution – one that yields low-cost, low-risk, high-impact breakthrough. Innovation happens at Toyota through systematic pursuit of perfection at every level, every department, in everything Toyota does. Perfection equates to excellence, precision, flawlessness at Toyota. And it is this chase for perfection that creates better processes, products and services for tomorrow, today. It takes many small steps (Collins - Built to Last) to create sustainable innovation. For example, the Lexus cars made by Toyota epitomize perfection in the form of car design, function, performance, service and total satisfaction.

3. The Rhythm of Fit

May propounds that great innovation has to fit – fit the innovator, the times and the larger system. How can a great innovation shape and then change the attitudes and behaviors of people, the way they think, they work, they live? A change that fits in the current time and environment. For example, the Toyota Prius car. A hybrid car that provides plenty of room in the inside, shows solid performance on the highway, provides all the safety features, and gives great gas mileage and range. Toyota envisioned the changing environment of higher gas costs and pollution that wanted a car which is economical to drive, is environmentally friendly (green innovation), and does not sacrifice the inherent need for roominess, safety and performance.

The three principles create both the policy and framework at Toyota for driving innovation and creating elegant solutions. How would you find and drive innovation at your organization? Here are six ways to find innovation. If you are a technology company, read about how Intuit creates innovations and achieves market leadership using similar principles. May asserts that these three principles are non-negotiable and must be adhered to by everyone at Toyota.

Blocking Innovation

May also talks about the obstacles that hinder sustainable business innovation which Toyota has tactfully avoided through out its history. He calls these innovation blockers “temptations”, which are about taking short cuts, trying to hit a home run every time, creating products too complex that are top loaded with extra dressing, and without a real understanding of the innate customer need.

Here are the three Innovation blockers (does your organization block creativity and innovation? Here are some tips to unblock creativity and innovation) that Toyota has avoided over the years:

1. Swinging For Fences

High risk. High reward. NOT. When a company only focuses on trying to go all out for home runs every time at bat, you will strike out more often than not. The key is to build a sustainable batting average -- lasting innovation, and not just go out swinging every time at bat.

2. Getting Too Clever

Every product manager at one time or the other is guilty of adding all those extra "bells and whistles" that the customer does not care about. This happens when you bow in to competitive pressures, or needs of specific customers that are not indicative of the mass market. The company ends up creating products that customers actually run away from.

3. Solving Problems Frivolously

May calls this the "brainstorm" trap, which is creating something that is out of line with the company’s core values, not serving customer’s true needs, and worse yet, something that is created hastily without rigor and analysis.

Ten Practices for Making Innovation

May showcases the following Ten Practices that Toyota has adopted on its core principles towards making Innovation happen:

1. Let Learning Lead
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand, but learning comes first.” Education and Learning can drive substantial innovation.

2. Learn to See
“Elegant solutions often come from customers -- get out more and live in their world.” The key is to unearth the latent needs of the customers, and perceive the emerging needs.

3. Design for Today
“Focus on clear and present needs, or your great ideas remain just that.” Innovation that drives business in today’s market is likely to get funded and succeed.

4. Think in Pictures
“Make your intentions visual -- you'll surprise yourself with the image.” In Six ways to find innovation, we talked about the need for visual imagery.

5. Capture the Intangible
“The most compelling solutions are often perceptual and emotional.” This is where the product manager needs intuition and the ability to read their customers’ minds.

6. Leverage the Limits
“Restraining forces rule -- resource constraints can spur ingenuity.” It is critical to know what you can deliver, how you can deliver and by when.

7. Master the Tension
“Breakthrough thinking demands something to break through.” In Failures and Stumbles driving innovation, we talked about the five takeaways stimulating innovation. Accept that mistakes will be made.

8. Run the Numbers
“Think for yourself -- temper instinct with insight, focus on facts, and do the math.” A sound technical analysis is critical before you begin a new product innovation. This should take into account such factors as risks, probabilities of success, and lessons learned from past projects.

9. Make Kaizen Mandatory
“Pursuing perfection requires great discipline -- create a standard, follow it, and find a better way.” A process is a must have. Think Six Sigma. Think Rigor at Intuit.

10. Keep It Lean
“Complexity kills -- scale it back, make it simple, and let it flow.” Innovation happens when you can simplify the intended application and make it so easy-to-use that it becomes a no-brainer.

Bottomline:

Toyota has become the dominant car maker today based on large part due to the Innovation Factory. A Factory based on a foundation of creating elegant solutions through three guiding principles, avoiding three “temptations” and driving ten production practices.

"Toyota is becoming a double threat: the world's finest manufacturer and a truly great innovator . . . that formula, a combination of production prowess and technical innovation, is an unbeatable recipe for success."

* Fortune, February 2006

References:

Matthew E. May: “The Elegant Solution: Toyota's Formula for Mastering Innovation”. Free Press. 2006.

Originally posted by Sanjay Dalal from Creativity And Innovation Driving Business
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 7, 2007 at 01:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As many of you know, Edward Tufte is a leading expert on visual presentation of information. I attended his one-day course last week. A couple of highlights:

"There is no such thing as information overload, just bad design."

"Clutter is not an attribute of information, it is an illness of design."

"To simplify, add detail."

"Pitching out corrupts within."

Thoughts on those comments, or any other thoughts on Tufte?

Posted by Steve Yastrow | Comments?

Originally from The Tom Peters Weblog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nico Macdonald provides a comprehensive review of the recent Competitiveness Summit at the UK Design Council. Here's a quick taste:

Innovation "will dictate the economic prosperity of nations," Cox observed, but the weakness of the UK is "not being able to take full advantage of this." We produce people in art schools who don't understand the language of the business world, he noted, and business people who don't understand how to manage innovation. How can we combine their skills?

[Read full article here.]

...

Originally from core77.com's design blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sadagopan's Weblog on emerging technologies, trends and thoughts has named innovation as the Dominant Mantra for 2007. Citing Peter Drucker as well as a recent report from Booz Allen Hamilton on R&D spending, Sadagopan points out that "innovation would count as the most important thing that tech organizations around the world would be going after in the new year." In building the innovative enterprise, one of the most important factors is managing, recruiting and enabling the right type of human capital:

"In an age where the rules and procedures of an organization can be an obstacle to segmentation and a force for “averaging” the treatment of individuals’ roles, and in a situation where organizations need to offer very specialized services, definitely a radical new look at the way talent gets categorized, nurtured and reviewed are called for and on an ongoing basis, needs to be reviewed to provide a definitively fresh and dynamic approach. After all winning the people war is a crucial determinant of success for any organization. In most of the knowledge business, the future value of enterprises are centered on building seemingly intangible assets vs the conventional measures of capital assets. That's where good, capable people, well aligned team, well conceived strategy and top quality leadership matters..."

"The ability to recruit/mold the leaders that will be able to create the future innovations that will make enterprise more successful is a major responsibility & talent management will determine the organization’s growth as much as the overall business strategies will. This will shape organizations in a significant way and if organizations get this right along with purposeful innovation models, competitiveness increases and success would follow..."

[image: Cubicles by glennpeters on Flickr]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is a bit scary.  The academic world is losing it's place as a center of innovation.

Linda Sanford gave a presentation at the MIT-IBM Innovation lecture series this fall.  (Sanford is the Senior VP Enterprise On Demand Transformation and Information Technology.)  It was an impressive performance. Sanford supplied a "big picture" treatment of the changing tectonics of the corporate world, noting especially:

• the shift away from cost-cutting as the chief  preoccupation of senior managers

• the new interest in top line growth

• the creation of a less silo-ed, less hierarchical, less boundaried, less self sufficient, less top-down corporation in a newly horizontal, collaborative, open world 

• the new commitment to innovation as a first order of business   

This raised the question of where innovation comes from, and Sanford reported the result of an IBM survey of corporate CEOs.  (I am not sure of the timing or the dimensions  of this study.)

Sanford pointed out that the 20th century CEOs would likely have identified the university world as an important source of innovation, even as they gave pride of place to their own internal research and development departments.  This has changed.  Now both come in at the bottom of the array.

I would be surprised if there was a journalist at this presentation, but, hey, this looks like a story to me.  The annual investment made in the academic world is very large.  And now it looks as if the R-O-I (return on investment) is beginning to disappoint. 

How do we fix the university?

Tomorrow: b-schools, d-schools, e-schools and innovation

Reference

Sanford, Linda.  2006.  Building an Innovation Company for the 21st Century.  MIT-IBM Innovation Lecture Series.  October 17, 2006.  here.

Acknowledgment

The graphic above is take from Ms. Sanford's IBM-MIT presentation.  It is used without permission.  I am hoping IBM's commitment to collaboration and openness extends far enough to allow me to reuse this graphic here. 

Originally posted by Grant McCracken from This Blog Sits at the
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Originally posted by Jeffrey Phillips from Innovate on Purpose
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the Innovation Weblog, Chuck Frey has posted a collection of innovation lessons learned during 2006. This year's version of the survey resulted in a record number of responses from innovators around the world, including several from Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. One of the best responses in this year's innovation survey came from Darlene Waldmiller of Emedco, who points out that innovation must be everyone's job:

"In order for an Innovation program to work in any company, the innovation process must be a ubiquitous tool for all levels and all facets of the company, from the company maintenance worker to the CEO. No one can be excluded and no one is exempt. Everyone must try to contribute, to think in newly developed ways to incubate creative processes. This is how any company will continue to foster growth and a climate of interdependence.

It can never be us vs. them, whether the "us" is hourly manufacturing workers and the "them" is salaried marketing exempts, or the "us" is the company and the "them" is the competition. We are interconnected and must innovate systematically, utilizing all the parts and making a new engine together. Don't bash the competition, take what is working for them and build on it. Don't brush off an hourly worker's idea as a complaint about working conditions. Take the idea and polish and make it something really worthwhile. Do this together by really listening without judgment. The social interaction and value free considerations are what will really drive your Innovation process to become the force driving your company."

[image: Rene Magritte]

Originally from The Business Innovation Insider
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The talented people over at Influx has recently released a new thoughtpack called Interviews. For the last couple of years, interviews have been a part of the Influx Insights blog. They have had the opportunity to talk with an incredible group of individuals. People whose expertise ranges from economics to photography, an eclectic collection that defies conventional boundaries. Despite this diversity, they share a passion for innovation and creativity. The eclecticism of these interviews that among others include Ross Klein of Starwood hotels on why Second Life matters for his brands and anthropologist Grant McCracken discussing the cultural impact of Borat.

And if you like the format of interviews take some minutes to scan through my own bulletins as well and read some smart words from people behind Acne Jeans and Ikepod watches to mention a few. Happy reading!

Ping Intressant.se

Andra bloggar om: intervju, intervjuer, kreativitet

Originally posted by David Carlson from David Report blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is not only the web that has turned social these days. Design 21: Social design network is an on-line community formed in partnership with UNESCO, where members of the design community, socially conscious individuals, local governments, businesses and non-profit organizations (NPOs) can address social concerns and create smart solutions through design. It’s a place where like-minded people can connect to share resources, inspire each other and take action. I think that this kind of mind and knowledge sharing is crucial in any kind of development. Because “what you give is what you get” and if knowledge could connect in surprising and ground-braking new ways we are looking towards maybe a little brighter future. As I reported in the David Report bulletin “Liberate design” I would very much like to see more of an open-source mindset outside of the software industry. Then we can really make a difference.

Design 21: Social Design Network has recently launched three contests challenge designers to create a Global Warming campaign, a Children’s Toy and an Emergency Shelter. Each carries a first prize of $5,000. The contests are open to students and professionals of all design disciplines. The official logo of this new community was selected from a design competition where Design 21 received over 950 entries from India to Iceland. Winner was Monika Kosciuczuk. Dutch designer Richard Hutten was the creator of the symbol of the network, the Allumonde ring.

Let’s get social!

Andra bloggar om: design, community, tävling

Originally posted by David Carlson from David Report blog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My colleague Paul Bennett of IDEO has written an insightful and delightful essay for BusinessWeek: Most Memorable Ads of 2006

Here's an excerpt from Paul:

We're clearly at an inflection point. I'm not even a traditional ad-guy and I've been asked to write this, so what does that say? We're all firmly in this together—marketers, designers, clients, agencies, researchers, ethnographers, art directors and writers, all being sniped at, out-thought, and remixed by consumers younger than our own kids. Hard as it is to say, in most cases, they're as good, if not better, at this stuff than we are. Now, together, we must figure out where to go from here. But before we get in to a whole spiral of circle drumming, chest-beating and problem-solving, let's take a quick tour of some of the highlights of the last year.

But first a warm-up of sorts: Honda's Impossible Dream spot—which aired in December, 2005, and therefore doesn't make the official 2006 list—deserves a mention for Not Being Afraid of the Joy of Great Storytelling, for expansive locations, great nostalgic music, excellent casting, and a fantastically simple premise. In it, a guy emerges from his trailer, mounts a scooter, and then seamlessly moves from product to product, stirring emotions, sweeping us along in his wake, and bringing a tear to many an eye.

I've written before about Honda's Impossible Dream ad in the context of what I like to call tangible brand mantras (you can see the ad by following that hyperlink).  It's an ad I can watch over and over (and I have - maybe 50 times; not as many viewings for me as the original Star Wars, but getting there).  And it's one which is authentic and true even though it's so outrageous and funny.  Honda is a company where the CEO knows whereof he speaks.  It's a company as capable of pulling off revolutionary innovation outcomes as it is innovating on a routine basis.  It's a group of people not afraid of thinking weird but right.  And, above all, it's a company which solves for happiness because, when one gets down to the bottom of it all, that's what drives innovation.

Originally posted by Diego Rodriguez from metacool
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Many companies are obsessed with a competitor when they should be obsessively focused on their customers. It is a common mistake made by companies large and small. The Guardian Unlimited has a fascinating interview with Jeff Raikes, President of Microsoft Business Division. The interview covers a wide range of topics including Apple, Visicalc, Sharepoint, Office, Live online apps, Bill Gates, software piracy, and others. But, I came away with one big thought that applies to all businesses "don't be obsessed with a competitor, stay focused on the customer".

Startups often get obsessed with beating the market leader, watching every move they make, targeting their marketing messages at trashing the competitor, trying to hire key employees, and basically building a company culture of "us against them". Big companies do it too. The ego of big company CEOs drives them to beat the competition. I'm sure you can think of examples in every market segment.

Customers have their own business to worry about and they want solutions to their problems, at a reasonable price, that are easy to use, and work well with what they already have. Customers don't care that a particular product is open source, shared source, out-sourced, sole sourced, or anything else. The Open Source guys get all wound up about the difference between GPL3 vs GPL2 vs Creative Commons vs every other type of license. Customers really don't care about that. Customers want the best solution to their problem at a reasonable price.

Jeff Raikes says "The reason is, people get very focused in on trying to undermine Microsoft and they don't get very focused in on the customer." In response to a question about Office and online versions of the same functionality Jeff said "the thing that will probably trip people up is they'll get focused on the idea that that's a replacement for the Office suite, when what's most interesting are the new and unique scenarios that you can get by having that capability. But then, it's our responsibility to make sure that our customers have access to those services as part of their use of Office tools. It's about software and services, as opposed to services versus software."

Technology Focus is another problem. How many times have you listened to a company pitch its product or service and watched them get totally wound up about the technology or the "how", and completely ignore the customer benefits? It happens all the time.

Focus on the customer and you can't go wrong. This is a great lesson for businesses large and small, and one that we sometimes need to learn over and over again. In the many startups I have worked at I have always tried to, ask the customer, unprompted by self serving questions, what problem they are trying to solve. Believe it or not, some customers don't have the problem you are trying to solve, or they already have a satisfactory (to them) solution to it. If so, move on...don't waste your time. Don't try to convince the customer they really DO have the problem you solve. This is another common mistake of startup sales people. I have done it myself...many times.

Listen to the customer, truly listen to what they are saying. Not just one big customer, listen to hundreds of customers and look for patterns. Build your product and your marketing around the common customer themes. Don't focus on the competitor. Don't take the battle to their turf...you will most likely lose. Remember one of my favorite cliche's... In a fight between a grizzly bear and an alligator, the terrain determines the victor. Listen to the customer and keep the battle on your turf.

Originally posted by DonDodge from Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Attention economics will reshape business economics.  It is not just a question of re-thinking marketing, but re-conceiving business.  Yet, with a few notable exceptions, we are only at the very early stages of mapping out what attention economics means, much less what its implications are for business. 

As I have written about here and here, attention economics starts with the observation that, as products and information proliferate, attention becomes the scarce resource – we each have only 24 hours in the day.  Where we choose to allocate this attention will increasingly determine who creates economic value and who destroys economic value.

To my knowledge, the first person to highlight this phenomenon was the Nobel prize winning Herbert Simon in an article published in 1971:

...in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.

Unfortunately, Simon never really developed this insight further.  Michael Goldhaber picked up this theme and developed it significantly and provocatively in a seminal on-line article "The Attention Economy and the Net" published in First Monday in 1997. At the time, he indicated that he intended to write a book on the subject but, alas, the book has yet to appear. Independently, Georg Franck, an Austrian professor of city planning, published an article in 1999 on “The Economy of Attention” that picked up on a number of the same themes.

In the meantime, two books have been published on related subjects. My friend and former colleague Tom Davenport wrote a book with John C. Beck in 2001 called The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. While providing very interesting perspectives, the book focused much more on management techniques rather than taking on the task of mapping out a more systematic view of attention economics.

So, I was quite excited when I came across a book called The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information by Richard Lanham, a professor emeritus of English at UCLA.  I hoped that we might finally see a systematic exploration of attention economics, made all the more refreshing because it came from someone outside the profession.

The book is a fascinating exploration of the dynamic that exists between stuff and fluff – physical goods and information about physical goods.  Lanham’s basic thesis is that, in an attention economy, stuff recedes in importance and fluff increases in importance. Any book that can draw connections across the Dadaists, Gregory Bateson and Friedrich Hayek is well worth a read. In Lanham’s perspective, rhetoricians and artists like Andy Warhol and Christo are the new economists of attention. Yet, I left the book feeling dissatisfied – I did not yet see any systematic exposition of the economics of attention.

In a recent review of Lanham’s book, Michael Goldhaber gives voice to my dissatisfaction:

One of the consequences of the intensive mathematization of standard economics is that a humanist like Lanham is utterly snowed.  He wears his innumeracy on his sleeve, and so declares repeatedly that he cannot be a “real” economist. . . Nonetheless, certain economic thoughts, not requiring mathematical sophistication, still ought to be considered for possible relevance in discussing a new economy. Lanham fails to make the attempt.

We can try to pin down something of what a simple “attention transaction” is, and what it means to pay attention in the first place. We can talk about what makes attention scarce, what makes it desirable, how it can be used to obtain various sorts of wants, how one person may channel or divert the attention of another, how attention is multiplied by having an audience, what causes people to pay attention to a particular other person in the first place. We can try to understand larger chains, networks, or loopings of attention, as it passes, say from person to person. We can view the entire economy, or some large subset of it as a system, and try to show how people respond to relative scarcities of attention and how they might be attracted to those who have lots. And so on. An economics of attention should encompass any and all of this.

Reading Goldhaber’s review confirmed my view that Goldhaber is still the best candidate to map out the economics of attention, even though I disagree with some of his early formulations that seem to suggest that attention will become a currency that will replace money. The good news is that Goldhaber has posted a draft of one of his chapters of his long-awaited book The Emerging Attention Economy on his blog.  I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in the topic.

While his work is too rich to summarize easily here, I wanted to pull out some key points that I think makes Goldhaber’s approach so promising:

• Unlike many people who have written about the relative scarcity of attention relative to information overload, Goldhaber never loses sight of the fact that attention is ultimately about the connection between people, as illustrated in the following quote

In paying attention to the words, then, we are actually paying attention – as best we can – to the person who seems to have uttered them . . .  This suggests that the prime purpose of words is to make possible this kind of connection between people.

• Goldhaber appears genuinely intent on mapping out a systematic set of economic principles that will shape where and how value gets created and captured in the attention economy

• Goldhaber also avoids the trap of viewing attention as a commodity – “Commodities are usually standardized, more or less generic things or substances that can be bought and sold in measurable amounts. None of this holds for attention.”

In fact, Goldhaber is close to viewing attention as a flow, rather than a stock – something that must continually be refreshed, if it is to be maintained.  One can only continue to attract full attention if one offers something new along the way.

Goldhaber’s rich view of attention as an “aligning of minds” helps to make it clear that the multi-tasking and continual partial attention that many digerati believe will reduce attention scarcity is at best a weak remedy. His perspective helps to explain why, as Linda Stone has suggested, full attention will become the new aphrodisiac.

In reflecting on what I have seen of Goldhaber’s work, there are some areas that I hope he will develop in much more detail:

• Right now, Goldhaber’s writing seems focused on the consumer sphere and, as a result, the connection between attention and talent development is much less explicit than it could be – the bottom line is that attention becomes critical for production/creation and not just consumption, as I have briefly suggested here and here.  It also helps to explain why the demand for attention will rapidly increase while the supply remains limited.

• Goldhaber’s perspective on attention provides an interesting lens to view the distinction between transactions and relationships and I hope he will explore this distinction in greater depth. One important way to amplify the value of attention for all parties is to build relationships.

• Goldhaber makes an interesting observation that “the norm in attempts at getting attention, the sine qua non of this new economy, are more in the line of self-revealing than either self-concealing or merging into some mass.”  I hope he develops this theme more – it will help to draw together a broad range of phenomena including the demand for more corporate transparency and the success of social network sites in creating more visibility for its participants.  Transparency may paradoxically become an increasing requirement for visibility.

Now, for most executives, this can seem like a pretty abstract discussion without any clear relevance for near-term actions.  That impression would be a mistake.  The attention economy is surfacing around us today – it is not some distant future. As with most economic trends, those who spot them and act on them early are most likely to create significant value. Here are some early action items:

• Explore the implications of attention scarcity for firm structure – I view attention scarcity as a key catalyst driving the unbundling and rebundling of firms that is occurring on a global scale

• Master the management techniques required to increase return on attention, not only for customers but for employees and business partners as well

• Create mechanisms to help customers and employees attract the attention they need to become more successful in their endeavors, especially in terms of their talent development.

We don’t yet have a road map for all of this, but some of the early paths are starting to become visible.

Originally posted by John Hagel from Edge Perspectives with John Hagel
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mrs. Businesspundit gave me The Tao of Warren Buffett for Christmas. It's short and I read the entire thing yesterday between family gatherings. Each page has a Buffett saying, along with a paragraph or two of explanation. I liked the book so much I wanted to share some of my favorite Buffettisms in this post.

• You can't make a good deal with a bad person.
• It's easier to stay out of trouble than it is to get out of trouble.
• The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.
• My idea of a group decision is to look in the mirror.
• The reaction of weak management to weak operations is often weak accounting.
• You can always juice sales by going down-market, but it's hard to go back upmarket.
• You have to think for yourself. It always amazes me how high-IQ people mindlessly imitate. I never get good ideas talking to other people.
• In looking for someone to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. But the most important is integrity because if they don't have that, the other two qualities, intelligence and energy, are going to kill you.
• Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.
• A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
• If you let yourself be undisciplined on the small things, you will probably be undisciplined on the large things as well.
• The fact that people are full of greed, fear, or folly is predictable. The sequence is not predictable.
• We also believe candor benefits us as managers. The CEO who misleads others in public may eventually mislead himself in private.
• What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history.

There are lots of other good sayings, 124 in all, so pick up the book if you find them interesting.

Originally from Businesspundit
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

AZcentral.com:

Selling a message to a whole body of people isn’t nearly as effective as reaching just the part of the group that wants to hear your pitch.

The concept is niche marketing, and is widely considered to be the hottest, smartest approach to advertising today.

If you have a computer and an e-mail address, then you are an ideal candidate for niche marketing. Companies you have done business with (think Amazon or Travelocity) can request your e-mail address, and then, based on your purchasing patterns, send specific e-mails about products and promotions that should attract you.

“What worked well 20 or 30 years ago won’t do it today,” said Roger Hurni, partner and creative director at Off Madison Ave. in Tempe. “Now, there are dozens of ways to communicate.”

Niche marketing is fundamentally based on a deeper understanding about who the customer is, then building a message based on that understanding.

Photo by jbl_nyc.

Originally posted by Rich from Business Opportunities Weblog
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

?]

Thanks! And best wishes to y'all for a wonderful 2007. I know 2006 sucked for many of us, but the new year is a powerful metaphor for 'starting new.' At the very least, you get to start a new calendar and crack open a crisp, fresh, Moleskine ; )

[Photo of Daniel knitting at Foo Camp by Brian Sawyer]
[Photo of me is so old I can't remember who took it. And would you get a look at the size of those trucks? Not to mention the 80's hairstyle...]

Originally posted by Kathy Sierra from Creating Passionate Users
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How do you find Innovation? Can you find innovation blind-folded or using the same lens? Can you even look for Innovation? Or it just happens.

Innovation is coupled in some ways to imagination where every time you see something, you open your eyes to endless possibilities. Literally. According to Chuck Palus and David Horth, authors of The Leader's Edge: Six Creative Competencies for Navigating Complex Challenges, you need to “see with new eyes” in order to find innovation. We had discussed earlier on how leadership can drive innovation inside your business. We naturally fall into a habit of looking at things around us with the same eyes, analyzing it with the same logic and creating the same perceptions. It is easy to get used to this routine. Most managers act the same way. According to the authors, most managers “act on what they expect to see”, take shortcuts, do not spend enough time analyzing information and making a sound judgment. It’s as if the managers are walking around blind-folded since they have already created built-in perceptions of what they see.

Why is this so? We are after all living in the world of action. People get rewarded to get things done fast. And managers are no different. According to the authors, managers spend ninety percent of their time solving the problem, and only ten percent thinking about it. There is too much focus on getting the problem resolved quickly and moving on to the next problem. Perhaps this happens because of the sheer pace of work, multiple competing projects, approaching deadlines, and focus on quarterly results. The result: the problems are half-solved or worse yet, wrongly solved. The authors assert that "Complex problems — even really wicked ones — often begin to crack and shift when you spend more of your time looking at the problem."

What does all this have to do with Innovation?

Palus and Horth believe that Innovation happens when you begin slowing down (what did you say?), and when you put the brakes on the way you normally see and perceive, analyze and understand.

Here are the Six Ways to Find Innovation:

Stand in different places

Switch roles. This is the only way to learn and understand what is out there or in there. If you are the manager, become an employee. If you are in Sales, become a customer. If you are the product manager, become the product or the user. Try to adapt the mindset of who you want to do business with. Change your perspective. This bit of role playing will allow you to find new innovative ways to look at the same problem, and find a solution that you never thought existed before.

Use the lenses of other domains

Are you selling high tech gear? Well what if your buyer was shopping for groceries? How would you sell to that buyer? Are you looking to create that next big innovation in chemistry? What if you were to use this innovation in sports? Learn about something other than your domain knowledge. Try to apply this knowledge to your problem. Say you are trying to market an application to the CEO of a company, and are not able to determine the appropriate message, the punch line. What if a Kid were to buy your product? How would you explain to the Kid? The key is to use a different lens outside your domain and arrive at a solution. If you don’t know how to use a different lens, find someone in the company who can. Or create a group to do this.

Ask powerful questions

Questions are not just for the devil’s advocate and to create doubts. There is no such thing as a silly question. Question everything about what you are trying to accomplish. Start with why, what, how, when, what if, so what, where and so on. Ask broader or narrower Questions. Ask the question of a metaphor. Ask opposite questions and inside-out Questions. Ask precedence and consequence Questions. Ask ridiculous questions, and don’t forget to ask the “Real” question. Ask about object rules and action rules (Shank). Question the merits and even ask how you can make the innovation worse or fail. The more questions you ask and the more answers you try to find, the more innovative ways you would come across in trying to find a way to create a new product or solve a problem.

Foster new knowledge

New knowledge not only comes from your own domain, but when you are out there doing something else. Go attend a trade show of an unrelated business. This will open up your mind to how businesses are creating products for other markets. You may find an application of this in your market. Spend a week with your customer. Understand the problems your customer faces on a day to day basis; not just for your product, but everywhere else. Gain new insights on how your customer does their business with their customers. Check out what your key competitor is doing outside their place of business, what they are doing to promote and market their products. Do Offsites with your creative teams, and focus on learning something totally unrelated to what you are doing. Use the Offsites to create some group thought. The creative team should spend time in new places to gain new viewpoints, and which in turn will generate new ideas.

Create a visual verbal journal

A picture says a thousand words. A journal to put down your thoughts visually will allow you to think about your ideas from various angles, and create clarity of thought. Wherever possible, doodle. Do drawings of processes, tasks, relationships. Connect the dots or let them flow from one to another. Create a habit to write down key ideas, however unrelated, and try to associate these with real world scenarios. Create more pictures (don’t worry about whether they are pieces of art). Imagine the customer you are trying to sell visually. What would be they thinking out loud or saying out loud? Write short catchy phrases describing their actions and thoughts. At times you may be going on different tangents from your visual thoughts, but it is possible that one of the new tangents holds that all important idea to generate new innovation. And at times, the visuals may create even further complexity. Perhaps it is best to let go of that visual, and start a new one. Wherever possible, try to associate visuals with concise thoughts or ideas.

Change the pace of attention

How do you lead groups to find and create innovation? The key is to slow them down and try to get the group to focus on a few key ideas initially. Try to brainstorm on these ideas using creativity techniques such as free association, locksmiths, SCAMPER, or Question Breakdown. Ask the group to bring their own ideas, however silly they may appear on the surface, and evaluate each idea and brainstorm. Give rankings to each idea by having everyone vote. If the group is pressed for time, and is moving fast through the thought process, make it a practice of slowing them down. Ask more questions. Try to change the topic to have the group momentarily think of something else. Bring them back. Try to rephrase what you are trying to do. What you are trying is create is that moment of intuition or magic moment wherein group members can come up with an idea that everyone says “wow, let us explore that.” Use group forums or N-Gates to channel the group creativity into a new idea or innovation.

Are you ready to find innovation inside your business? Remember to slow things down, view the world with a set of new eyes, follow the six steps above, and unblock creativity and innovation within your organization.

References:

CCL – Center for Creative Leadership. CCL e-Newsletter, October 2006: Needed: A New Way to See.

Leading Creatively: Acting Sensibly and Meaningfully in a Complex World by Charles J. Palus and David M. Horth (CCL & Jossey-Bass, August 2001).

Originally posted by Sanjay Dalal from Creativity And Innovation Driving Business
ReBlogged by philmckinney on Jan 1, 2007 at 01:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)