DTI has some interesting showcases and great link resources about Innovation and Creativity and also about Product Development. Check it out – especially the different cases.
Archive for April, 2005
"No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
-H. L. Mencken; Wisdom of Crowds
In the article - "All Together Now" James Surowiecki discusses the ways collaboration is occurring in the development of new ideas and new products. What would Malcolm Gladwell say?
UPDATE - Thx for clarifications Steve
Following an interesting chat with Simon about thinking outside the box about the way business models fit together (over Belgian beer in Cape Town’s bustling Green Point :-), I remembered an interesting concept I had struggled with a year or two ago.
As humans, we tend to accumulate a lot of knowledge during our lifetimes. It starts with basic surveillance of our surroundings as babies, and moves through interaction and conscious evaluation of options towards abstract thinking and philosophising (this perspective is, of course, extremely simplified!). However, it’s quite logical that our frames of reference increase exponentially as we progress. Each time we think and reason about something, we’ve got more and more knowledge with which to compare the outcome. People have tried to simulate this intelligence with Expert Systems, with varying rates of success. Crucially, these systems are only as effective as the body of information/knowledge they draw from. It’s almost like a wisdom of sorts - better decisions can be made if the frame of reference is deeper and larger.
Now, that’s all logical so far. What I found very interesting though, is the concept of composite knowledge. Is all knowledge made up of a composite of thousands/millions of other pieces of knowledge? In other words, is it possible to come up with something truly unique, or are we restricted to a finite framework?
Think about it this way: When you dream, are your dreams restricted to what you have visually perceived in your lifetime (albeit an almost infinite combination of these perceptions), or is it possible to conjure up completely unique thoughts and images?
Hmmm, let me reference my database…
Product design can play a big role in innovation, but too often it is used only as an attempt to make a product look good. This approach is characterized by a designer creating a wall full of visual variations in which the stakeholders pick the ones they think look good. The use of design language, by contrast, is characterized by an intentional development of the form in order to achieve more systematic ends.
Design language can express the product’s core benefits, create identity for a line of products, help the product relate to its environment, and communicate how the product is used. Looking good certainly results from this development, but it is not the end goal.
Design language is important to both complex product lines like automobiles but also can be used in simpler product lines like Eva-Solo’s wonderful housewares. Of course, Apple has been masterful at managing their design language over the years. There is little published on methods for creating a design language, but it is increasingly important as global sourcing allows any marketing firm to source any product. Design language is one way to establish more meaning in one’s product line, reinforce brand identity, and make the company’s products a pleasure to have.
Era 05 organizers: "We believe that success in a changing environment includes greater integration, more focus on design, and requires greater designer initiative."
What I like to ask them is – what about design as an integrated business development process. Well okay – I’ll better ask them – maybe Project Manager Marc has an answer? I’ve asked him today about being a guestblogger for a while – maybe during the conference as well? He promissed an answer after the weekend 
Yesterday I received a mail from Simon. It was a hint about a book that definitely is a “MUST READ”.
It’s a new book from Eric von Hippel – “Democratizing Innovation”
I must admit – I’ve only run through a few chapters, so I can’t give you a detailed description – yet.
But – what I’ve seen is VERY good. I especially like chapter 7 about Innovation Communities – did anyone said weblog’s?
Another thing – The book is COMPLETELY new – just released, but on the Internet. What does that tell you?
It tells me at least 2 things – a. Mr. Hippel doesn’t earn big bugs on book selling – who does? b. The Internet is a new channel for writers – we knew that already didn’t we?
The confederation of Danish Industries has recently proposed a new political initiative for the establishing of a governmentally funded centre for innovation and product development in Denmark. The background is the Danish companies lack of knowledge, tools and competencies for working with innovation. The centre will primarily work with five focus areas:
1. Consumer needs and market behaviour: Methods for mapping the consumers present and future needs, as well as models for how future needs can be created for the consumers.
2. Research and technological development: Models for how scientific knowledge can be capitalised and transformed into new products and services.
3. Front-end innovation: Development of new product concepts, based on knowledge of new technology, consumer and market behaviour.
4. Idea to product: Models for how an idea develops from being an single idea to become a finished product or service.
5. Global roll out: Models and methods for how to configure products for specific, local markets.
According to an analysis recently conducted by the Danish think-tank Monday Morning, 66% of the Danish companies need more knowledge, new tools and a more systematic process for working with product development. Another survey shows, that 50% of the enquired companies lack competencies for meeting the new demands for innovation.
That globalization are moving the production head-count to Asia is nothing new (latest news in Denmark is that LEGO is cutting and moving) but aside from production theres a nervous feeling that more knowledge intensive exercises will move abroad as well.
Whats the argument for keeping the strategic design responsibility in Europe or the US? It cant be skills because their good at design. They are good.
As far as I can see the main argument is…the customer. I think its the fact that future decision making needs to be made close to the customer! So as long as your market is not in Asia your strategic innovation and design resources should not be there either. If your market is in Asia on the other hand…you better move out there quickly!
Whats your view on design and globalization?
I had the opportunity to hear Professor Armand Hatchuel present the C-K theory at Copenhagen Business School last week.
"The C-K theory’s central proposition is a formal distinction between "concept" (C) and "knowledge" (K). This distinction allows to identify the singularity of "design" when compared to probelm solving/finding approaches or other standard forms of reasoning."
According to Hatchuels theory innovation can be systematic, controlled and managed when it seperates conceptual thinking (creativity…) and knowledge. In a complete process the work goes from C to K and back again. Current knowledge will set the context for conceptual work, to force creativity and the conceptualization of what does not (yet) exist and the conceptual work will force new knowledge to be developed and diverse resources to be involved in the project.
I believe that the theory is a rather abstract but very interesting and while being academic it is used in Renault and have been used to create Mg-CO2 engines fo Mars exploration. Maybe there something to it?
The latest issue of The Economist has an article
on user-driven innovation. It’s well worth a read, as it brings
together a couple of important themes– user reinvention, the economics
of open source, and technologies of cooperation and collective action.