-
Innovation was once the work of an individual. Now - from weblogs to mountain bikes - we are inventing the things we want to use, writes Charles Leadbeater
-
Article about the new sweet science of Open Source Marketing
-
New blog - will be interesting to see it grow
-
Brief but good stuff on creative thinking
-
Chuck just launched this new Resource Center
Archive for June, 2005
I would like to add to Hans Henriks post about driving incentives for better idea generation processes.
During my research in the field of innovation one of the things I noticed is that there is always this fascination of newness and radical innovation - to find the blue ocean that is pure and free and untouched, or to have this moment of bliss where you see everything clear and can free yourself from all constraints and reach a higher level… These thoughts are very intriguing and seducing in their mythical and spiritual connotations, and somehow what people have been longing for in different cultures at all times.
That is just not how it normally works - every idea is an expression of the collective potential of meaning, sense and ideas at any given time. For example the idea of the internet is based on the idea of neurological networks, which was expressed in California at a time where a lot of bright heads where wondering about the systematic and network like structure of all living matter - and especially the human brain.
There is this thick continuity in cultural change and ideation procesesses that is very difficult to come around. - And if you actually manage to free yourself from the constraints of your culturally, historically and disciplinary conditioned world view and come up with a truly new and radical idea…. chances that it will be doomed as crazy or non-sense or just no use is very big.
Okay, so what’s my point…? My point is that ideation processes should rather than aim for the radically new and out of the box idea go for creating ideas within some sort of framework or picture that has been defined, and rather than going for newness going for opportunities for improvement, creating value, etc. And there are lots of opportunities still!
This is where user centered innovation comes in. I was very inspired by the presentation of Paul Bennett from IDEO at the Innovating with Diversity conference, where his message was: it’s all about people! Get out there. Talk to them, observe them, experience their everyday situation - and keep your senses open to all the opportunities of making valuable innovations for real people. Use story telling, movies, experiences, and prototypes to get your creativity working - and to enable the collaboration of people with diverse skills. And what would motivate and engage you the most? Innovation of nice new things or innovation for improving people’s life?
The following two articles both originate from the Report103 newsletter which I urge all of you to subscribe to. If the articles had been available online I would have linked to them using del.icio.us but they are not, so I am going to copy/paste them here.
Spreading the Creativity
I saw the latest Star Wars film, Revenge of the Siths, the other day. The special effects were stunning. The film was rich with all kinds of realistic inventions, floating vehicles, spaceships, weapons and much more. Moreover, the detail down to the mud stains was incredible.
Sadly, the story, plot and characterisation all lacked the creativity of the special effects. And while I was overwhelmed by the special effects (I’m one of those rare birds who sits up at the front of a cinema so that the screen fills my field of view and I can admire the detail work), I was actually bored by the film itself.
The problem with Revenge of the Siths is that George Lucas and company invested the bulk of their creativity in the special effects, rather than in the story and character development. In the end, of course, Mr. Lucas will make sacks full of money on his latest film so it can hardly be classified as a failure. But it could have been so much better.
-
Illustrated e-book on innovation - great for CEOs aswell as kids
-
Great guide - give it to your boss
-
Blog covering von Hippel’s theories of customer co-created products
-
Good article recommended by Naina from ASIDE
-
Print it now and give it to your boss
-
Great insights from some of the most influential designers on this planet
A lot of rumble in the design community recently. Hillary Cottam from UK Design Council’s RED unit won the Designer of the Year award and it seems not all designers think she’s that great. A lot of vague arguments though, for example just saying that she worked with a lot of people is a very bad argument - what designer works just by himself today? No one really.
But the major topic here is that people claim that Cottam is not a designer. Not a designer in the typical sense that is. Cottam has done a lot of work in the fields of "new design", much like the topics we cover here. Design as a tool to solve problems, not just shape products. Cottam and RED has done a lot of work in this and she really deserve this prize. It is not just a victory for Cottam, but a victory for "new design".
Congratulations Hillary, if I were you I wouldn’t listen to all the critics - they’re still stuck in the stone age! 
More coverage at Thackara, Lombardi, Core77, The Observer and ofcourse RED.
The guys here at cph127 have kindly invited me to guest blog.
My first reaction was to think, but what do I know about design? Of course, that self-judgement is based on a old-fashioned perspective on design, very similar to old-fashioned perspectives on marketing, publishing, retaliing and other industries. That perspective says, leave design to expert designers, our job as consumers is… well, to consume. It’s a paradigm that some of the most successful web businesses have started to undermine - look at what eBay has done to retailing.
Of course, this blog is largely about design as a collaborative process. Something where everyone has a part to play as co-creator. I was pleased to see another guest here, Chris Conley, describe himself as a facilitator. I’m biased, of course, because that’s how I describe myself too - facilitation is about getting people involved and encouraging participation in the ongoing process of creating our lives.
I was thinking about this when I read a good post by Aleah at Incite by Design. She’s worried about the isolating effect of everyone wandering round glued to their iPod:
Good design is argued in everything from new product sales to saving the world. I wonder, however, how design can be applied to bring people together rather to pander to the individual’s taste and preferences?… I am left to wonder what product designers, especially in terms of new technology, are doing to bridge the gap between individual needs and community connectedness. Even the blogging and podcasting culture is 98% narcissistic.Right now product design seems pretty rooted in the "Me" rather than the "We."
I like this notion of design for we, for the community. It gets away from design purely by one ego for another (of which I’d say FCUK here in Britiain is a high exemplar) and speaks to richer, if fuzzier possibilities…
Over the past weeks Magnus, Jacob and I have been discussing how to improve, how to develop cph127. We are discussing the layout, the content, some new functionality’s and maybe a few in depth writing’s about design, strategy and innovation - manifesto’s.
But what would you like? Where do you think we should improve? If we should cover exact your specific need, what would that mean in terms of a new cph127?
Or let me put it the other way around – how do you use cph127 today and what are you missing?
Sometimes rules should be thrown out the window. Often the most valuable lesson in art and design schools is ignored. For a visual communicator to grow and improve, you must be prepared to throw everything you just learned out the window. Expect the unexpected.
Got it from TP Wire Service
Olivier Toubia is doing some very interesting research in the field of ideation.
Idea generation (ideation) is critical to the design and marketing of
new products, to marketing strategy, and to the creation of effective
advertising copy. However, there has been relatively little formal
research on the underlying incentives with which to encourage
participants to focus their energies on relevant and novel ideas.
Several problems have been identified with traditional ideation
methods. For example, participants often free ride on other
participants’ efforts because rewards are typically based on the
group-level output of ideation sessions.
As I see it his study is HIGHLY relevant in qualifying the right ideas at the fuzzy frontend. Do you have any ideas, any experience about ideation processes from your own practice? Good/bad things? Methods? Incentives? Please share?
-
Good article on web-design and design theories