CPH127

I had high hopes for Giles Slade’s Made to Break after reading a positive review of it that promised more than the doom and gloom critique of mass manufacturing by adding interesting back-stories of the development of a range of every day objects. Unfortunately, Made to Break didn’t live up to this billing. It never really does get beyond the doom and gloom, mixes it with a heavy does of conspiratorial paranoia, and applies this formula to every product it looks at. Even more unfortunate, Slade missed a chance to do a much-needed update to the time-worn critique to highlight the real issues we are facing today.

The author’s fascination (horror actually) with planned obsolescence (designing products to intentionally fail prematurely or fall out of style on schedule) follows in a long trail of critiques of the concept. Let me say that there’s little I find likeable about the idea of planned obsolesence - it’s a cynical, underhanded method of getting people to buy more products, more often. I’ll take Slade’s word that it was practiced as widely as he describes in the first half of the twentieth century. And let’s also agree that the early generations of industrial designers - Slade calls out Brooks Stevens for particular scorn for his invention and promotion of planned obsolescence - were instrumental in facilitating it.

At the same time there were also designers who truly tried to create long-lived, durable products that would have a timeless style. Charles and Ray Eames and Dieter Rams come to mind.

Scheduled style obsolescence was honed to perfection by the stylists of Detroit, led by Harley Earl at GM. But to imply this mentality is in place today, unchanged, is completely false in my experience. Never in all my years of practicing have I had a client tell me they want a product to fail after a certain number of months - without exception mechanisms are designed to last as long as we can make them (often designing under a number of constraints such as size, cost, material usage, etc. which perhaps gives the impression they are designed to fail after a certain time). I’ve never had a client say "Make this look good, but not too good. Leave some in reserve for next year so we can get people to buy it all over again." Everyone wants to make the best damn product they can at the time. Hyper competition won’t allow anything less.

Like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney fighting a Cold war in a terrorist world long after the Iron Curtain has come down, Slade persists in a world view that is decades out of date. That world simply doesn’t exist anymore.

(Slade doesn’t help his case by riddling the book with
small factual errors that add up to a sense that he didn’t do his homework. In the
chapter on the development of computer UI’s I lost count of the number
of basic errors: Alan Kay’s Smalltalk is referred to as a networking
method when in fact it was a programming method; the history of Jobs,
Raskin, the Mac and the Lisa is quite contorted; Raskin named the
Macintosh after his favorite eating apple, not because it grew around
Cupertino.)

But a subtler point lost on Slade is that it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t need to. Another world has replaced it, that of voluntary obsolescence, which serves the economic purpose even better. Like the transition of Cold war to ad hoc terrorism, this shift is also one from top-down authoritarianism to decentralized action. The approach of planned obsolescence has so pervaded and framed our consumption mentality that we (as consumers) don’t need to have products go out of style on a planned basis or have them fail on schedule for us to be more than happy to replace fully functioning products with new ones. This fact has saved Apple’s bacon and made them the darling of Wall Street again.

Three major forces are driving this.

1. Style: People are more aesthetically sophisticated and demanding than they used to be, and want more frequent sating of style fixes. When the first design shows were put together for the Museum of Modern Art in NY, the curators had to cast far and wide to put together enough well-designed products to make it worthwhile. Today an afternoon in Target would do the trick (well, perhaps a stop in Moss [LINK] wouldn’t go amiss).
2. Technological progress: Technology is obviously evolving rapidly, furiously, unpredictably, and at the same time becoming networked together in webs of products, services and software that were undreamed of in the 1950’s. This leads to dependencies of performance within the systems that drives updates (ie, updates to replace products that are fine in isolation but obsolete within the network)
3. Competition: The business world is far more competitive and complex than it was 75 years ago with many more players, and those players are more sophisticated. It is this hyper competition that is a major cause of ever more rapid product releases, particularly in the tech sectors, the antithesis of the conspiratorial tone that Slade relies upon.

Slade talks about style and technological obsolescence but doesn’t connect them together into a modern framework, instead adopting the old-guard "save the poor public from being duped by the big bad corporation" trope.

I don’t believe people are simple, unthinking "consumers" of all things provided. They (we) are thoughtful, discriminating, unpredictable, fickle, rational and emotional beings. If we were easy to push product to year after year, companies’ lives would be a heck of a lot easier. But we don’t just take what they give. Long gone are the days when companies could push the new tail fins and have the culture unanimously cry "And they are good!". Decisions now are more localized and individualized, thus less prone to predictability and more prone to churn.

Voluntary obsolescence has greatly sped up consumption from what it was under the days of planned obsolescence. This has led to a degree of ecological destruction (with much more coming from the wastestream yet to be made) that should be of major concern. Whereas the older critique of planned obsolescence was more of a moral crusade - prevent the helpless public from being duped out of its money! - the attention now needs to be on the ecological price we, our children, and our grandchildren will be paying for our current freedom to obsolete our posessions.

Which general was it that said "You always fight your last war"? Unforuntately Giles Slade is doing just that, and has missed an opportunity at an opportune time to critique the new world of voluntary obsolescence and the ecological damage that it is causing.

Tom at MediaA introduced me to this concept a few days ago. The Long Tail is defined as a statistical model where:

” a high-frequency or high-amplitude population is followed by a low-frequency or low-amplitude population which gradually “tails off”. In many cases the infrequent or low-amplitude events can cumulatively outnumber or outweigh the initial portion of the graph, such that in aggregate they comprise the majority.”

Coined in 2004 by Chris Anderson,the editor-in-chief of Wired, who is writing a book on the subject, it’s interesting to hear about how this model applies to internet-based businesses such as Amazon and Google and how they compare to brick-and-mortar businesses.

He compares traditional big businesses like Hollywood who are really interested in just the first part of the curve in a way, ie. the first week of ticket sales and performance as a way to judge a film’s performance vs. online businesses who might be more interested in the long run, how their business will grow from a short peak and gain momentum and interest from users through recommendations, word-of-mouth, etc. ultimately leading to a longer lifespan and growth through time.

Listen to this talk given by Chris, its definitely worth it.

Deloitte has put out a new survey that has some very interesting findings in it. It’s called “Gambling with the House’s Money: The Randomness of Corporate Innovation,” and this gives a hint of the subject. (Free registration required, allows you to watch the webinar, and download a PDF of the Powerpoint.) Their finding is that the processes that many companies have in place are no better than a coin toss at nurturing winners. This is true whether the companies develop internally or work with an outside partner.

The majority of the time, respondents said that their most effective innovations came from “rogue inventors or under-the-radar skunk works” - these required savvy executives to spot the innovations and nurture them along, circumventing “official” processes. Unfortunately they don’t provide any hints as to how to better spot winners early.

What’s also interesting is what the survey reveals about why companies deny funding to budding innovations: insufficient profitability (55%); lack of consistency with existing core competencies (43%); or lack of consistency with existing strategy (41%). This means that companies have a surplus of innovations which are either promising but which they don’t know what to do with, or which are draining resources even though they don’t connect with the company’s strategy or capabilities. As I talked about in my earlier post, this is something I’ve seen anecdotally, so was intrigued to see Deloitte report on it quantitatively.

(A caveat pursuant to the earlier comments on ideas vs. innovation, the Deloitte study uses a rather inconsistent definition that’s not clearly spelled out, though they bring a bit more focus toward the end of the presentation.)

(Tip of the hat to Bruce Nussbaum for the pointer to the survey.)

Since the very beginning of CPH127 my main interest has been on the organizational side of what innovations is all about. And yes, the design discipline has a lot to offer in that respect.

I have – and a lot of the other pilots at CPH127 too – mentioned several different approaches toward how innovation can be approached.

Back in December I wrote about Open Sourced Leadership – in that post, among others, I described the “term” pull as a factor – as a mindset – for growth, innovation, value-creation, future business development.

Last weekend I read a very interesting piece “From Push to Pull – Emerging Models for Mobilizing Resources” and it stroke me that everything I meant back then is written down in that article. Not that my mind was all set, is all set, but it’s very good put and definitely a worth read.

John Hagel & John Seely Brown seems to have set the lens on a “new” model for mobilizing resources. Rather than “push”, the new approach focuses on “pull” – creating platforms that help people to mobilize appropriate resources when the need arise.

2 X John state further that pull models emerge as a response to growing uncertainty. Did anyone say complexity?

They also state that pull models treat people as networked creators, even when they are producers or customers purchasing goods and services. Did anyone say weblogs, social software or Web2.0?

Read the article – it’s a good one

Understanding complexity, seeing patterns and knowing where you fit in – personal leadership - in the process, in the picture is what is needed when dealing with chaos – I think.

But do you understand complexity, do you know how to deal with chaos? And what about your personal leadership?

I just found a bibliography on complexity resources that I what to share with you.

The reason why I think complexity and personal leadership is important is of course because I think it matters in terms of your ability to innovate the right way.

What do you think?

FORA just finished a report on "Userdriven Innovation" - The report recommends that better research and education in knowledge
and skills related to user-driven innovation be implemented.
Furthermore, the report recommends the establishment of dedicated
knowledge centres that can facilitate co-operative efforts with
companies in analysing customer demands.

How do you do that in your country? As part of a centralised institution? Other? Please share - would definitly be interesting to share opinions on….

Btw. Please take a look at the interview with Mr. Jorgen Rosted during INDEX: here in Copenhagen during September - he works as a Director at FORA.

After I wrote my post titled "Innovation Lessons from the BoP" it struck me that it would be far more appropriate a post for CPH127’s global focus on design and innovation. It’s a very long article, so I’ll repost an excerpt below for context. I look forward to discussions on  what we can do to assist those at the bottom of the pyramid with their efforts in innovation and design.

Prahalad states, in the introduction to his book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, that:

If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden
and start recognizing them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and
value-conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open
up.

IMHO,
the focus of the world, however, has been on the products and services
that can be designed for the BoP, they have been recognized as
"value-conscious consumers", which is but one aspect of Prahalad’s
assertion. The other side of the story, less visible in the public eye,
is the opportunity to co-create with those he recognizes as "resilient and creative entreprenuers".

The question, that arose in my mind, after reading this recent article, is "Where
is the venture capital, the product development support and the
marketing opportunity for the innovations that rise UP from the bottom?" It seemed to me, that all I ever read about were products FOR the BoP.

Now there is an opportunity to really make a difference. As Prahalad says, four billion* poor can be the engine of the next
round of global trade and prosperity, and can be a source of
innovations.

Continued.

Jess just ignited an interesting discussion – I think. It’s about positioning the different kinds of design/innovation/consulting/research-firms in the landscape. In ONE landscape….

The exercise is good and relevant but I think we need to discuss the “Arena”, “The Façade”, The Blink spot” & “the unknown”…..

The terms is from a metaphorical tool used primarily in self-help groups and corporate settings as a heuristic device to encourage people to open up to another in self-disclosure. Johari’s window.

What I need is a discussion on what we measure, where we do in terms of geography. I also need a discussion on what we actually know about the different players - and of course what we don’t know.

As first said, the discussion is highly interesting and relevant – especially when it comes to defining this new field of business. Who is moving in which directions?

So, lets move the discussion even further – What is our Arena? The US, Europe, the rest of the world?

And what do we in fact know about players like Cheskin, IBM og Portigal Consulting – all 3 as good examples

And what about other players? I could mention PARK from Germany and The Netherlands or maybe ReD Associates in Denmark. I think we have to broaden up a little bit. The new players in this new field will come from unexpected niches – I think

In addition to my to earlier posts regarding decentralization……I found this valuable resource about “Open Source Leadership”, and other interesting topics related to “design thinking”

I’m thrilled, though I know – of course – that not everything what’s open or decentralized is good

….but I think it’s a necessary path for most companies to follow , at least to try….

Again, it requires a different mindset.

I think so.

Although I think that “Blue Ocean Strategy” is “old wine on new bottles” they got a major point when saying that you should not look at how you can get a piece of an already existing marketplace – create new ones.

In Europe we’ve seen several examples on how well known market players have lost market share – almost dropped out of the marketplace. One nice example it the aviation-industry where we over the past few years have seen completely new players. And why?

Because the best breed entrepreneurs is looking on the possibilities with completely different eyes. Or what?

Skype is a good example – the technology is “old”, not invented by Skype, but the serviceoffering is new. And their businessmodel is interesting, execution is breathtaking.

I know its old news when saying that disruptive move’s in the valuechain is unpredictable – but I think there are a lot of companies that need to open their eyes and I think design is one of the “tools”

The development in the technological area is an another……..