CPH127

I’m a heavy Flickr user and have over a few iteration re-discovered the possibilities in sharing photos. It’s amazing how easy it is to use, connect and share networks of interest.

Since New Year I’ve been working on a major innovation project for one of the truly market leaders in the food ingredients industry. As part of the project I’m considering using Flickr as an Anthropological tool, but I’m nor aware of the constraints or great possibilities, but can see a huge potential in using it..

Do you have any experience in doing so? Wanna share? How should I design this? Is it valid?

By the way – I see that Cheskin claims they invented Digital ethnography as a methodology. Did they really?

One of the themes at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos (January 25-29) is "the creative imperative." As German Chancellor Angela Merkel explained in her keynote address, citizens must have the freedom and ability to translate innovative ideas into action. By allowing the creative imperative to flourish, a society encourages innovation, which in turns leads to prosperity and societal well-being.

A number of weblogs are keeping tabs on the event, including the World Economic Forum blog (featuring podcasts with innovative thinkers like Sergey Brin of Google), George Polk’s blog at the Financial Times, a blog from an AP reporter and Bruce Nussbaum’s design blog. There’s also a great blog post about the creative imperative from Fast Company called What’s the Key to Creativity?

So is this "creative imperative" something that people will act on once they return home from Davos?

Every week seems to bring a new Google innovation.  (This week, it was the blockbuster deal with dMarc to bring Google’s Internet advertising expertise to the not-so-innovative U.S. radio market.) With that in mind, FORTUNE’s "Innovation Insider" blog pays tribute to Google’s never-ending quest for innovation with a look at the various ways that Google can help the casual Internet user discover new innovation resources. If you check out the link for "Google Images," there’s a link back to a CPH127 post from September ("What is Innovation?")…

Brianna Sylver makes some very good points in her article "What does ‘Innovation’ really mean?" about the need to understand the hiring organization or client’s motivation for seeking ‘innovation services’. As we all know from our previous attempts to define the word, ‘innovation’ means different things to different people and this can give rise to mismatched expectations. From the article,

Corporations typically seek innovation services in response to one of three situations:

1. They are currently engulfed in the flames of the "burning platform"
(as Russ Ward, Director of New Product Development at IMP, Inc. calls
it). Their profits are dropping, their products are not selling and
they don’t know what to do about it.

2. They have emerged from the days of the "burning platform" and have
come to understand that innovation is not a start/stop process, but an
evolving one that requires constant attention.

3. They are a leader in their industry and are determined to stay
there. Failure is accepted within their organization because they
understand and fully embrace the numbers game in product development.

In addition to understanding the motivation, she goes on to write about the importance of understanding the client’s ‘innovation tolerance’ level which in turn helps define the success criteria for the project. This helps ensure that the project and it’s deliverables are relevant and useful to the hiring organization - instead of situations where the consultant offers a ‘blue sky’ radical solution while the client just wanted an incremental product improvement. There’s much more in the article including tips on understanding your client’s culture and effective ways to improve the consultant/client relationship. Go read the whole thing!

Democratizing Innovation – what’s all about? Vol 2.0

Eric von Hippel has done a presentation on his book with some nice examples.

He proffes multiple examples where an ordinary user, frustrated or even desperate, solves a problem through innovation. His research found innovative users playing with all manner of product: mountain bikes, library IT systems, agricultural irrigation, and scientific instruments.

Please see the presentation here

Thanks to Business Innovation

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.

I’m throwing this provocative question out to our global audience on CPH127, whether establishing a national design council, creating a national design policy, or in general, bringing government support to the design industry has any benefit?

My reason for doing so is not out of any particular opinion on my part, instead, two recent issues in the news impelled this question out of curiousity. Especially since I know that our esteemed founders are closely connected to the Danish Design Council :).

The first article, from The Hindu, announces India’s imminent ratification of a National Design Policy, creation of an Indian Design Council, and most interesting, their intention to create a "mark" to qualify good design. This article states,

"The National Design Policy will be announced in January. Merely
coming out with a policy statement will not suffice, as it will have to
be followed up with implementation. Among other things, the `Designed
in India’ label will have to be linked with a certain quality
specification," Mr N.N. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, said.

The attempt would be to position `Designed in India’ as a
label that assures quality and utility. This could be in conjunction
with other labels - `Made in India’ and `Served from India’.

A mechanism will be worked out for creating a brand image for
Indian designs through the award of an `India Design Mark’ that satisfy
certain criteria such as appeal, centricity, ergonomic features, safety
and environment findings.

The EETimes, on the other hand, has an article titled "The politicization of Innovation" and covers the recently proposed bill submitted to the United States Congress, the "National Innovation Policy 2005" [.doc link] While I will not enter into the "is design equal to innovation" debate, an overly battered dead horse, methinks, I do however wonder if a national design policy or design council, along the lines of those established in Europe, (notably the UK, the DDC of course :), ANZAC and Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea - all leaders in consumer electronics) would benefit American industry. Indeed, this Innovation Policy, and it’s intention to create a President’s Council on Innovation, could possibly be the equivalent of a design council/policy, as per the other nations, I doubt though, that it is. These are it’s three key initiatives,

increasing investment in basic research;

improving science and technology talent;

and developing a robust innovation infrastructure.

and their terminology implies a) that innovation is inherently technology led and that b) design is not innovation.  On the other hand, for argument’s sake, if this were a design policy and the intention was to create a national design council, do you think that it would be of greater benefit? If so, how and why? While on this topic, I’d like to throw out a few more questions on design policies in general, are they useful to nations? Actually, what I’m asking is, Hans, do you do anything over at that Design Council? [just kidding]  Here’s a link to Ars Technica, which has a pessimistic view of this initiative by the US to give balance, and perhaps add fuel to this discussion.

Michael Beirut wrote a thoughtful piece on "Innovation is the new black" at Design Observer, where he made a point, amongst others, that,

It turned out that the operant word at the symposium wasn’t design but innovation.  Yes, innovation. Everyone wanted to know about it. Everyone wanted to talk about it. One of the panelists was Business Week’s legendary design advocate Bruce Nussbaum.
"When I talk to my editors about design, I have trouble keeping them
interested," he confessed. "But there’s a tremendous interest in
innovation." The lesson to me seemed clear. If we want the business
world to pay attention to us, we need to purge the d-word from our
vocabularies. That’s right: we are all innovators now.

I appreciated his take from the classical designer’s point of view, as it gives balance to the word "innovation" showing up everywhere, but more importantly, was this very insightful response by Larry Keeley of Doblin, on the subject that innovation is not equivalent to design and should not be used interchangeably. Larry’s kindly given me permission to post his comment in full here on CPH127, so here it is: