Ok so this is obviously in response to a former post but i think its worth a seperate discussion. As we see that this “trend” of consumers designing their products comes through, isnt this a clear indication of the slow shift in the way people think of their products and how they shop for them.
We used to give choice in real life to express a desire for personalisation: a coffee cup offered in 5 different shades on a shelf. But now we are offering the opportunity for a consumer to customize without having seen the product physically and therefore directly link production to demand and shiftling towards a better understanding of how people choose to buy and why.
Another interesting point is for example the NikeID thang… its fun, its virtual, it gives instant visual gratification but the choices are not that unlimited… there is still a degree of control over what is produced, just like there arent 56 colors of coffee cups offered on the shelf. The medium that we use to communicate choice or personalisation is different and most of it has to do with how people perceive the service of choice… i see many interesting things happening to traditional production and how businesses adress that shift.
Any thoughts???
Dear Josephine
A few months ago I wrote a short e-mail to you asking if it would be possible for me to motivate you to share some of your very interesting perspectives on design as part of future innovation.
A few minutes ago I finished reading an article your wrote as part of the strategy conference in Chicago in May.
The reason why I’m asking you again and again and again is that I share you view on what design is meant to be in an overall strategically company context.
Please share with me and the rest of the cph127-community.
Would that be okay sending her way?
Some time ago I wrote about the great conference in New Zealand, Better by Design, and recommended that people would go to their site and look at the slides. I suppose a lot of you did, and I would now like to give you some heads-up for reading even more informational stuff. Peter Zec’s slideshow "Return of Ideas" is now online and I really recommnd you go there and read the slides - it’s killer stuff. Infact it’s 110 pages of killer stuff. Free.
And oh by the way, how do I know that some new slides had been uploaded? I (ofcourse) subscribed to their newsletter - you should too! (You can use Bloglines for newsletters too, you know)
According to people who study trends, globalization and the growth of the Internet have made the world’s 6 billion consumers more aware of choices across the planet. They are demanding to put their stamp on what they use and wear.
Interesting, right?
The problem for most companies is though that they don’t now how to involve the consumer - as I see it.
Read more.
Today and tomorrow I attend the 12th International Product Development Management Conference at Copenhagen Business School. The first day has been quite alright although I’m an outsider as non-scholar around all these Phd.-students and professors.
One key note was one of Denmarks grand old men in design, Jacob Jensen, who did the most living presentation of the day when he talked about his life and cooperation with Bang & Olufsen between 1960-1990. He showed some remarkeble designs that are still brilliant although they were drawn (they really was drawn) some 40 years ago. The transistor radio prototype shown on the picture is from 1962!
Most interesting however, was how Mr Jensen and the key stakeholders from B&O formed a "group" called the idea group. The group consisted - apart from Mr Jensen - of the Chief Financial Officer, the Product Development responsible and the Chief Marketing Officer and they meet once every week!
Imagine the atmosphere, the decision power and the discussions they must have had. It’s just such a simple idea but it shows so much commitment from the company and so much "guts" from the designer. Around that table they could - each week - talk about how current project ran, how the product strategy should look for the future and secure coherency over some cups of coffee.
They results speak for themselves: during the partnership with Mr Jensen B&O rose to become an international brand with a very distinguese design. Ofcourse Mr Jensen was - and still is - a remarkable designer but I’m sure that the organization of the development - the idea group - also played a vital part.
Now the tide has changed and things are not going like they should at B&O, maybe they should try an idea group again. Perhaps they are pursuing this strategy allready?
After being in the field of innovation and design for a while I’ve discovered that there are 2 specific questions in the forefront of every design and innovation process.
1. How can I “produce” ideas enough to ensure my “innovation/design”-portfolio?
2. How can I be sure that the ideas are the right ones?
Both questions are highly relevant for most companies and a lot of them are struggling with the answer the days.
I don’t have the answer, but I’m in the search for a more “complete” truth/framework.
Do you have any ideas, links, what-so-ever that can help me in my search?
As part of my Master-thesis I found a knowledge-“hub” last summer. It only partwise recommends ways to future search….
Erik Roscam Abbing has done a new weblog about "Branding in Innovation". He writes some interesting stuff about linking branding to product innovation.
In the thesis he is writing he try to answer the following question - "How can brand identity and product innovation work in synergy so that new products will fulfil the brand’s promise?"
What do you think, is there a link worth exploring?
I know a few that would claim that branding is a bad excuse for the lack of innovation. I’m my self in doubt on this specific question and would love to have your insights. Any pro’s or con’s?
