# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Innovation Models and How to Implement Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover the top innovation models for corporate success. Learn how dedicated software can help you implement each model effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's competitive landscape heavily relies on innovation. Business leaders must constantly look for new ways to innovate because you can't solve many problems with old solutions.

Innovation is critical across all industries; however, it's important to avoid using it as a buzzword and instead take time to thoroughly understand the innovation process.

Here's an overview of innovation in business, why it's important, and how you can encourage it in the workplace.

What Is Innovation?

Innovation and creativity are often used synonymously. While similar, they're not the same. Using creativity in business is important because it fosters unique ideas. This novelty is a key component of innovation.

For an idea to be innovative, it must also be useful. Creative ideas don't always lead to innovations because they don't necessarily produce viable solutions to problems.

Simply put: Innovation is a product, service, business model, or strategy that's both novel and useful. Innovations don't have to be major breakthroughs in technology or new business models; they can be as simple as upgrades to a company's customer service or features added to an existing product.

Free E-Book:
So You Want to Be an Entrepreneur: How to Get Started
Access your free e-book today.
DOWNLOAD NOW

Types of Innovation

Innovation in business can be grouped into two categories: sustaining and disruptive.

Sustaining innovation: Sustaining innovation enhances an organization's processes and technologies to improve its product line for an existing customer base. It's typically pursued by incumbent businesses that want to stay atop their market.

Disruptive innovation: Disruptive innovation occurs when smaller companies challenge larger businesses. It can be classified into groups depending on the markets those businesses compete in. Low-end disruption refers to companies entering and claiming a segment at the bottom of an existing market, while new-market disruption denotes companies creating an additional market segment to serve a customer base the existing market doesn't reach.

The most successful companies incorporate both types of innovation into their business strategies. While maintaining an existing position in the market is important, pursuing growth is essential to being competitive. It also helps protect a business against other companies affecting its standing.
Learn about the differences between sustaining and disruptive innovation in the video below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!
The Importance of Innovation

Unforeseen challenges are inevitable in business. Innovation can help you stay ahead of the curve and grow your company in the process. Here are three reasons innovation is crucial for your business:

1. It allows adaptability: The recent COVID-19 pandemic disrupted business on a monumental scale. Routine operations were rendered obsolete over the course of a few months. Many businesses still sustain negative results from this world shift because they've stuck to the status quo. Innovation is often necessary for companies to adapt and overcome the challenges of change.

2. It fosters growth: Stagnation can be extremely detrimental to your business. Achieving organizational and economic growth through innovation is key to staying afloat in today's highly competitive world.

3. It separates businesses from their competition: Most industries are populated with multiple competitors offering similar products or services. Innovation can distinguish your business from others.

Innovation & Design Thinking

Several tools encourage innovation in the workplace. For example, when a problem's cause is difficult to pinpoint, you can turn to approaches like creative problem-solving. One of the best approaches to innovation is adopting a design thinking mentality.

Design thinking is a solutions-based, human-centric mindset. It's a practical way to strategize and design using insights from observations and research.

Four Phases of Innovation

Innovation's requirements for novelty and usefulness call for navigating between concrete and abstract thinking. Introducing structure to innovation can guide this process.

In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation, Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar teaches design thinking principles using a four-phase innovation framework: clarify, ideate, develop, and implement.

Clarify: The first stage of the process is clarifying a problem. This involves conducting research to empathize with your target audience. The goal is to identify their key pain points and frame the problem in a way that allows you to solve it.

Ideate: The ideation stage involves generating ideas to solve the problem identified during research. Ideation challenges assumptions and overcomes biases to produce innovative ideas.

Develop: The development stage involves exploring solutions generated during ideation. It emphasizes rapid prototyping to answer questions about a solution's practicality and effectiveness.

Implement: The final stage of the process is implementation. This stage involves communicating your developed idea to stakeholders to encourage its adoption.

Human-Centered Design

Innovation requires considering user needs. Design thinking promotes empathy by fostering human-centered design, which addresses explicit pain points and latent needs identified during innovation's clarification stage.

There are three characteristics of human-centered design:

1. Desirability: For a product or service to succeed, people must want it. Prosperous innovations are attractive to consumers and meet their needs.

2. Feasibility: Innovative ideas won't go anywhere unless you have the resources to pursue them. You must consider whether ideas are possible given technological, economic, or regulatory barriers.

3. Viability: Even if a design is desirable and feasible, it also needs to be sustainable. You must consistently produce or deliver designs over extended periods for them to be viable.

Consider these characteristics when problem-solving, as each is necessary for successful innovation.

The Operational and Innovative Worlds

Creativity and idea generation are vital to innovation, but you may encounter situations in which pursuing an idea isn't feasible. Such scenarios represent a conflict between the innovative and operational worlds.

The Operational World

The operational world reflects an organization's routine processes and procedures. Metrics and results are prioritized, and creativity isn't encouraged to the extent required for innovation. Endeavors that disrupt routine-such as risk-taking-are typically discouraged.

The Innovative World

The innovative world encourages creativity and experimentation. This side of business allows for open-endedly exploring ideas but tends to neglect the functional side.

Both worlds are necessary for innovation, as creativity must be grounded in reality. You should strive to balance them to produce human-centered solutions. Design thinking strikes this balance by guiding you between the concrete and abstract.

Learning the Ropes of Innovation

Innovation is easier said than done. It often requires you to collaborate with others, overcome resistance from stakeholders, and invest valuable time and resources into generating solutions. It can also be highly discouraging because many ideas generated during ideation may not go anywhere. But the end result can make the difference between your organization's success or failure.

The good news is that innovation can be learned. If you're interested in more effectively innovating, consider taking an online innovation course. Receiving practical guidance can increase your skills and teach you how to approach problem-solving with a human-centered mentality.
Eager to learn more about innovation? Explore Design Thinking and Innovation,one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you're not sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovation in Business: What It Is & Why It's So Important

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Innovation is key to organizational growth. Here's an overview of innovation's importance in business and how it can be guided by design thinking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Innovation Models and How to Implement Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover the top innovation models for corporate success. Learn how dedicated software can help you implement each model effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Master Peter Drucker’s 7 Sources of Innovation for Business Success | innosabi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover how Peter Drucker’s 7 Sources of Innovation can fuel your business growth. Learn actionable strategies to drive success and stand out in the market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Models of Innovation: The History of an Idea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Benoît Godin is a Professor at the Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montreal.Models abound in science, technology, and society (STS) studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's take a quick look at these models and the types of companies that embody them:

Creators fit the popular notion of highly innovative companies. Typically led by a strong, bold, visionary leader, they disrupt their core markets, protect their intellectual property, and make highly focused big bets that become the stuff of industry lore. Apple, which had a TSR of 21.2% from 2008 through 2017, is the classic example.

Solution builders look to the market for inspiration, drawing on observations and deep insight to address customer priorities and problems. Nike (16.5% TSR) typifies this model, combining customer insights with cutting-edge design and technology. For instance, shoe-based sensors link to web-based platforms offering highly personalized feedback that customers value.

Leveragers create a superior business model and then capitalize on it to sustain their industry leadership. Zara (whose parent company had a TSR of 16.8%) is a Spanish retailer whose fast-cycle innovation and fashion-forward designs changed the industry. At the heart of Zara's success are its breakthrough design, manufacturing, and distribution processes, which dramatically shorten the time it takes for new items to reach stores.

Expanders apply their core capabilities in new ways to take over adjacent markets and spur growth. Pharmaceutical innovator Gilead (14.4% TSR) continually enters new disease categories and markets in search of growth, achieving success through strong management, repeatable R&D and manufacturing processes, and a tolerance for risk that enables a long-term view. By acquiring Pharmasset in 2011, for instance, Gilead was able to develop two best-in-class treatments for hepatitis C and gain access to that promising market.

Defenders tend to win in mature or slow-changing industries and to innovate defensively in order to protect their advantage. As technology transforms more and more industries, adhering to this model becomes increasingly risky. The key to success is the ability to monitor the landscape for potentially disruptive innovations and to defend against them using tactics such as partnerships and acquisitions. When Allstate Insurance (6.4% TSR) used this approach, it was able to identify the shift to online and app-based products-and to acquire pioneer Esurance to keep from falling behind.

Fast followers optimize their capabilities across all dimensions in order to quickly respond to-and often improve upon-competitive innovations. Reckitt Benckiser Group (14.7% TSR) is a best-in-class fast follower in the consumer products industry, which is characterized by low consumer-switching costs and short product development cycles. To minimize risk and maximize speed, the company focuses technical capability and resource investment downstream, in product testing, with minimal energy spent up front, in consumer insight and ideation.

Context Is Critical

Choosing the right innovation model for your company is all about context. Industry context matters because only a subset of models can succeed in most industries. Some models are better suited to-and increase shareholder value in-certain industries and sectors than others. For example, four models drive TSR premiums in consumer retail:

Creators take on more risk but can achieve dramatic success. Lululemon Athletica (15.6% TSR), for example, capitalized on the growing yoga movement by offering a distinctive life style brand that encompasses everything from the actual products to the in-store customer experience to corporate philanthropy.

Solution builders create loyalty by understanding specific shopper segments and meeting their needs. For instance, Target (8.1% TSR) delivers a "cheap but chic" set of offerings that meet the needs of its young, often trendy customers.

Leveragers create a superior business model and then capitalize on it to sustain a position of industry leadership. Costco (13.4% TSR), for example, combines everyday low prices, a lean supplier network, and a members-only approach to stand out from the retail pack.

Expanders achieve rapid share growth by moving into adjacent markets. For instance, Amazon (30.3% TSR) brings its consumer data analytics, logistics capabilities, and exceptional customer service to an ever-expanding number of retail sectors, including fashion, luxury apparel, and-with the company's recent purchase of Whole Foods-brick-and-mortar grocery.

Companies struggle when they pursue an innovation model that their industry doesn't reward. For instance, retailer Sears (-23.6% TSR) used the defender model, counting on its brand recognition and network of brick-and-mortar stores to stay ahead. But when agile online players upended the retail industry, Sears lost its edge.

A company's individual context is also critical when choosing the best innovation model: How important is innovation to the company's strategy, its competitive position in the larger market, and the capabilities and advantages that set it apart? As the examples above show, companies in the same industry can succeed with different models-but the chosen model must align with a company's strategy, strengths, and capabilities. For example, Amazon and Costco both have advantaged-but different-business models. The expander model is a better choice for Amazon because it reaches a much broader pool of consumers and drives more rapid top-line growth, both of which align closely with the company's strategy and ambition.

Answering a set of common questions can reveal your company's context. Is innovation seen as a growth engine or a defensive tool in your overall corporate strategy? How strong is your company's competitive position, and how durable is the source of your competitive advantage? How important is brand, and what is the relative strength of your brand equity? How robust are your innovation-related capabilities compared with others in your industry? How much are you willing and able to invest in innovation? And, most important, how quickly does your sector change-and what value can be gained if your organization stays ahead of the curve?

When choosing a model, look for one that competitors either aren't using at all or are using poorly. Consider the investment required in terms of dollars, time, and the cost of upgraded capabilities, and then filter the options through the lens of your ambition and resources.

Making It Work

Migrating to a new model or better aligning your capabilities with an existing one are the most challenging aspects of transforming a company's innovation capability. The six innovation models are not abstract ideas. Each has a set of design principles and characteristics that govern the whole.

It helps to have an innovation blueprint clearly laying out all the interconnecting pieces that must align with and support the model. These include the company's organizational structure and culture; tools and processes for idea generation, commercialization, and portfolio management; and metrics and incentives to drive, track, and measure results. Such a blueprint can help companies commit to and reinforce their models through the design decisions that flow through their organizations. Consider the following:

The fast-follower model adopted by Reckitt Benckiser has potential for success in the consumer products industry, but the company's individual success is enabled by other factors as well, such as a flat organizational structure that maximizes speed to market.

Under Armour is a solution builder. To build more targeted solutions, the company invests in advanced analytics to better understand what the data reveals about the behaviors and needs of its fitness community.

Amazon's best-in-class expander model would not work without the company's high tolerance for risk, which is reflected in its internal metrics and people incentives.

In our experience, the six innovation models offer a powerful way for organizations to evaluate and refine their innovation strategies. They also help executive teams grapple with critical questions, such as, Which model are we pursuing and why? Are our processes and organization aligned with that model? Does the model confer advantage in our industry? Which models are rivals pursuing-and how well are they doing? Should we reconsider our innovation strategy and model? What investments and capabilities would a shift in those areas require?

Working through these questions will help companies choose the right model, develop the supporting engine to drive it forward, and reap the growth dividends that accrue from innovation success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Which Innovation Model Is Right for Your Company?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Innovators typically fall short either because they use the wrong model for their specific context, or they don't support their model with the right capabilities. Please let me know if you need anything else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Master Peter Drucker’s 7 Sources of Innovation for Business Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover how Peter Drucker’s 7 Sources of Innovation can fuel your business growth. Learn actionable strategies to drive success and stand out in the market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
403 - You have no access to the requested resource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It seems that there’s been an issue accessing our website. Your traffic appears to have been blocked, possibly due to security measures we have in place to protect our site and its visitors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to measure ROI for innovation—your complete guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Traditional ROI calculations don’t apply as innovation involves exploring new ideas and business opportunities. So how might we account for ROI in the context of innovation, to better capture its value and potential? Find out how.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discover thousands of collaborative articles on 2500+ skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover 100 collaborative articles on domains such as Marketing, Public Administration, and Healthcare. Our expertly curated collection combines AI-generated content with insights and advice from industry experts, providing you with unique perspectives and up-to-date information on many skills and their applications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In business, innovation rarely springs from a flash of inspiration. It arises from a cold-eyed analysis of seven kinds of opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's competitive landscape heavily relies on innovation. Business leaders must constantly look for new ways to innovate because you can't solve many problems with old solutions.

Innovation is critical across all industries; however, it's important to avoid using it as a buzzword and instead take time to thoroughly understand the innovation process.

Here's an overview of innovation in business, why it's important, and how you can encourage it in the workplace.

What Is Innovation?

Innovation and creativity are often used synonymously. While similar, they're not the same. Using creativity in business is important because it fosters unique ideas. This novelty is a key component of innovation.

For an idea to be innovative, it must also be useful. Creative ideas don't always lead to innovations because they don't necessarily produce viable solutions to problems.

Simply put: Innovation is a product, service, business model, or strategy that's both novel and useful. Innovations don't have to be major breakthroughs in technology or new business models; they can be as simple as upgrades to a company's customer service or features added to an existing product.

Free E-Book:
So You Want to Be an Entrepreneur: How to Get Started
Access your free e-book today.
DOWNLOAD NOW

Types of Innovation

Innovation in business can be grouped into two categories: sustaining and disruptive.

Sustaining innovation: Sustaining innovation enhances an organization's processes and technologies to improve its product line for an existing customer base. It's typically pursued by incumbent businesses that want to stay atop their market.

Disruptive innovation: Disruptive innovation occurs when smaller companies challenge larger businesses. It can be classified into groups depending on the markets those businesses compete in. Low-end disruption refers to companies entering and claiming a segment at the bottom of an existing market, while new-market disruption denotes companies creating an additional market segment to serve a customer base the existing market doesn't reach.

The most successful companies incorporate both types of innovation into their business strategies. While maintaining an existing position in the market is important, pursuing growth is essential to being competitive. It also helps protect a business against other companies affecting its standing.
Learn about the differences between sustaining and disruptive innovation in the video below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!
The Importance of Innovation

Unforeseen challenges are inevitable in business. Innovation can help you stay ahead of the curve and grow your company in the process. Here are three reasons innovation is crucial for your business:

1. It allows adaptability: The recent COVID-19 pandemic disrupted business on a monumental scale. Routine operations were rendered obsolete over the course of a few months. Many businesses still sustain negative results from this world shift because they've stuck to the status quo. Innovation is often necessary for companies to adapt and overcome the challenges of change.

2. It fosters growth: Stagnation can be extremely detrimental to your business. Achieving organizational and economic growth through innovation is key to staying afloat in today's highly competitive world.

3. It separates businesses from their competition: Most industries are populated with multiple competitors offering similar products or services. Innovation can distinguish your business from others.

Innovation & Design Thinking

Several tools encourage innovation in the workplace. For example, when a problem's cause is difficult to pinpoint, you can turn to approaches like creative problem-solving. One of the best approaches to innovation is adopting a design thinking mentality.

Design thinking is a solutions-based, human-centric mindset. It's a practical way to strategize and design using insights from observations and research.

Four Phases of Innovation

Innovation's requirements for novelty and usefulness call for navigating between concrete and abstract thinking. Introducing structure to innovation can guide this process.

In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation, Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar teaches design thinking principles using a four-phase innovation framework: clarify, ideate, develop, and implement.

Clarify: The first stage of the process is clarifying a problem. This involves conducting research to empathize with your target audience. The goal is to identify their key pain points and frame the problem in a way that allows you to solve it.

Ideate: The ideation stage involves generating ideas to solve the problem identified during research. Ideation challenges assumptions and overcomes biases to produce innovative ideas.

Develop: The development stage involves exploring solutions generated during ideation. It emphasizes rapid prototyping to answer questions about a solution's practicality and effectiveness.

Implement: The final stage of the process is implementation. This stage involves communicating your developed idea to stakeholders to encourage its adoption.

Human-Centered Design

Innovation requires considering user needs. Design thinking promotes empathy by fostering human-centered design, which addresses explicit pain points and latent needs identified during innovation's clarification stage.

There are three characteristics of human-centered design:

1. Desirability: For a product or service to succeed, people must want it. Prosperous innovations are attractive to consumers and meet their needs.

2. Feasibility: Innovative ideas won't go anywhere unless you have the resources to pursue them. You must consider whether ideas are possible given technological, economic, or regulatory barriers.

3. Viability: Even if a design is desirable and feasible, it also needs to be sustainable. You must consistently produce or deliver designs over extended periods for them to be viable.

Consider these characteristics when problem-solving, as each is necessary for successful innovation.

The Operational and Innovative Worlds

Creativity and idea generation are vital to innovation, but you may encounter situations in which pursuing an idea isn't feasible. Such scenarios represent a conflict between the innovative and operational worlds.

The Operational World

The operational world reflects an organization's routine processes and procedures. Metrics and results are prioritized, and creativity isn't encouraged to the extent required for innovation. Endeavors that disrupt routine-such as risk-taking-are typically discouraged.

The Innovative World

The innovative world encourages creativity and experimentation. This side of business allows for open-endedly exploring ideas but tends to neglect the functional side.

Both worlds are necessary for innovation, as creativity must be grounded in reality. You should strive to balance them to produce human-centered solutions. Design thinking strikes this balance by guiding you between the concrete and abstract.

Learning the Ropes of Innovation

Innovation is easier said than done. It often requires you to collaborate with others, overcome resistance from stakeholders, and invest valuable time and resources into generating solutions. It can also be highly discouraging because many ideas generated during ideation may not go anywhere. But the end result can make the difference between your organization's success or failure.

The good news is that innovation can be learned. If you're interested in more effectively innovating, consider taking an online innovation course. Receiving practical guidance can increase your skills and teach you how to approach problem-solving with a human-centered mentality.
Eager to learn more about innovation? Explore Design Thinking and Innovation,one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you're not sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovation in Business: What It Is & Why It's So Important

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Innovation is key to organizational growth. Here's an overview of innovation's importance in business and how it can be guided by design thinking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to deliver innovation results: expectation vs. reality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Strategyzer webinar featured innovation experts Alex Osterwalder, Tendayi Viki, and Carol Hill, where they discussion innovation efforts, strategy and how to deliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world's most successful creative minds and entrepreneurs all have one thing in common: they benefit from innovative thinking. Some people come up with a truly game-changing idea and they use that idea as the basis for a startup, which then can create an entirely new industry. Others use their innovative brains to solve problems in creative new ways, or to get the edge over a top competitor.

Innovative ideas are valuable, but for most of us, they're rare and nearly impossible to force. What does it take to come up with a truly innovative idea, and can you optimize your environment to help you generate more innovative ideas?

To start, let's delineate and clarify the different types of innovation from which you can benefit. Innovation can occur across many different scales, from system innovation to ground-level innovation. Big-picture system innovation requires you to rethink entire systems and bureaucracies from the ground up, or possibly come up with groundbreaking ideas that create new industries. There are also smaller-scale forms of innovative thinking; for example, you might figure out a new way to butter toast in the morning that saves you 45 seconds of effort.

We also need to differentiate between innovative organizations and innovative people. Innovative people, at the individual level, can come up with ideas that can improve their lives and change their environment. For an innovative organization to emerge, it needs the power of innovative individuals combined with internal mechanisms that allow those individuals and their ideas to thrive.

If you want to master innovative thinking for yourself and for your employees, you need to create environments that stimulate creativity and allow "outside the box thinking."

Allow more downtime.

It's commonly accepted that people tend to come up with their best ideas in the shower, but why is this the case? Science suggests it's because we're bored. When our minds aren't occupied with anything particularly interesting or important, they wander and that's when completely novel ideas can strike. If you want to think in a more innovative way, try giving yourself more downtime where you aren't focused on anything.

Encourage interaction.

People think in different ways and exposing yourself to intellectually diverse groups encourages you to think in new ways. The more people you talk to, and the more ideas and perspectives you see, the more creatively you'll come to think.

Get stimulated.

Innovative inspiration can strike you anywhere, from any stimulus, so get stimulated. Movies, TV shows, books, podcasts, works of art, and even nature can all help you get inspired, so find something that interests you and piques your creative thinking.

Learn from other innovative thinkers.

Find some truly innovative minds that inspire you and figure out what drives them. They may have certain habits, certain hobbies, or certain approaches to learning that help them think in dynamic new ways; try these techniques for yourself to see if they work for you just as well.

Those new individual ideas may not mean much in the context of an organization unless that organization is equipped to handle them. Here's how you can make your organization benefit more from individual innovation:

Embrace ideas from all people and all levels.

If you collect ideas from every member of your organization, you'll find innovative ideas almost constantly. For that reason, it's important to give everyone a chance to speak up and embrace ideas no matter where they originate.

Adopt a mentality that favors change and growth.

Old, massive organizations tend to be sluggish and unmovable. In some ways, this is a strength. It also means you're unable to adopt new ideas with any sort of agility. Your organization needs to be capable of turning on a dime and making big changes for ideas worth pursuing.

Encourage autonomy.

While it's certainly an advantage to have a consistent company culture that affects all people at all levels in the company, it's also advantageous to encourage isolation and autonomy. Let department leaders and supervisors make their own decisions and changes as they see fit, rather than forcing them to submit every idea to bureaucratic review; chances are, you'll see a lot more change and growth this way.

Innovation isn't entirely straightforward, and there's no way for you to force innovative ideas to come to you manually. However, if you're willing to make some changes to the way you think, act, and interact with others, you can create an environment that naturally fosters more innovative, game-changing ideas from the ground up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Come Up With More Truly Innovative Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world's most successful creative minds and entrepreneurs all have one thing in common: they benefit from innovative thinking. Some...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Innovation drives the world forward. It is what heals illnesses, protects individuals from danger, and makes life easier, more efficient, and more enjoyable. However, innovation does not just happen. It takes a catalyst, and one of the most robust catalysts for innovation is design. It moves an idea smoothly along its journey from a simple insight to a tangible, marketable product or service. Design provides the focus and structure that innovation so badly needs.

Design-thinking firms stand apart in their willingness to engage in the task of continuously redesigning their business...to create advances in both innovation and efficiency-the combination that produces the most powerful competitive edge.‌‌‌‌ Roger Martin

But while it is an easy thing to say that design drives innovation meaning, many are confused by how it actually works, as well as why design can be such an integral part of making innovation happen. This post will go into the what and the why of innovation by design, and discuss how businesses can use both the design process and designers to advance innovation in their organization.

What Is Innovation By Design?

Innovation by design is the utilization of a designer's methods and sensibility to address the needs of the consumer. Along with this design-driven approach, strong business strategy and technological feasibility are used to create both market opportunity and customer value.

Basically, the goal is to solve more complex problems with the methodology of a designer. This methodology is solution-based rather than problem-based. The aim is to find what actions will create the desired results. Exploration of the most beneficial outcomes is accomplished with everything from systemic reasoning and imagination to intuition and logic.

However, what many people miss when they think about "innovation through design" is what design actually is. The biggest misconception is that design is simply what a product or service looks like. In actuality, design is how (and why) the product or service functions. It is taking an idea and making it tangible and useful.

Why Does Innovation By Design Work?

One of the key steps of innovation by design is engagement with consumers. Prototypes are created, and then tested, and then refined. It is essential to do this because it minimizes the risk of product or service failure. Organizations learn what customers want, what they like, and what they will refuse to buy. These insights, which can not be effectively gained from methods such as market research or historical data, are essential for designers.

A true and deep understanding of customers creates the competitive advantage that gives organizations that use innovation by design higher margins and greater customer loyalty. It is this part of the design process that ensures profitable, popular, and revolutionary innovation.

But not only does innovation by design lower the risk of innovations, but there are also four other benefits that can be associated with it. The first is an improved ability to secure funding for development. Funding can be challenging to receive. Every organization has a budget, and much of that budget must go towards business as usual costs.

The company has to keep running and to do that, it takes money. However, when design becomes a much more integrated part of the innovation process, the end product is easier to visualize. It is backed by customer input. There is a more clear return on investment. This type of clarity makes it easier for leadership, investors, and stakeholders to get behind new innovations.

This leads to the second reason innovation by design works so well. When there is a clear process of design, there is more clarity for everyone on your team, from the developers to the investors. Everyone is on the same page. Marketing can begin to plan a timeline. Sales can begin to develop their pitches. Finance can begin to adjust the future budget. The entire organization can better prepare, and they can stress less about last-minute surprises, especially when it comes to resource use.

Improved clarity, as previously mentioned, leads to better preparation. Another reason that innovation by design works so well is simply that an innovation's introduction to the market goes more smoothly. When a plan is laid out and marketing, sales, and finance have been prepared more adequately, the innovation is shown to the public in the best light. The best market entry strategy is used, the best fundraising pitch is developed, and the best sales tactic is implemented. The product or service just has a much better chance of taking off.

Because of all of the previous reasons why innovation & design work, the fourth reason for success is created: organizations are able to better identify the commercial viability of new products and services. The engagement with consumers allows companies to see whether they should even pursue a particular innovation. The increased funding for development allows businesses to fully develop prototypes to flesh out their ideas and see how tangibly possible they are.

The improved clarity of the innovation enables the entire organization to test out how marketable, sellable, and financially viable an innovation is. And, finally, the improved preparation allows businesses to understand what exactly it will take for a product or service to succeed.

How Can Innovation By Design Be Implemented?

Innovation by design can be implemented in eight simple steps:

1. Discover: The is the step where exploration needs to happen. It is time to find out what consumers' unmet needs are. The best place to start is choosing a specific topic or area of interest and then gathering data.

2. Reframe The Topic: Once you have started down a path with a topic or idea, you need to take a deeper look at it and find any insights or patterns that you can. Throw out any assumptions that you may have about a particular problem, or the solution to previous problems, and reframe your point-of-view.

3. Incubate: This step takes patience. You need to unleash your creative side by doing things differently, looking at different stimuli, and acting accordingly. Let the idea grow.

4. Ideate: This is when the seed of an idea begins to bloom. It is time for the innovation team to begin meeting and sharing ideas. The team should discuss all possibilities and make those possibilities more visible.

5. Refine: When all of the ideas are in, it is time to take a good look at them. Really dig and and figure out what is possible and what is feasible. This is where much of the design comes into play. The innovation should be laid out in a very clear way.

6. Test: Once the idea is decided on, the team should begin talking to consumers. Find out what they think and how they would react to that product or service. Build prototypes and try them out.

7. Launch: Once the product or service is tested and refined, it is time to get approval and launch it.

8. Improve And Scale: When the product is available to the public, the team should get feedback and improve it. At this point it can be scaled up.

What is Innovations In Design?

What about innovations in design? Just as design can improve innovation, innovation can also improve design. There are several innovations in design that have helped designers be more creative and efficient. For instance, 3D printing has allowed designers to rapidly prototype products at a lower cost. Other advances in software, such as augmented reality tools, can give designers a better understanding of how their design will look in real life.

You have a powerful combination when you combine innovation by design with innovations in design. With this combination, you can create products and services that are much more efficient and cost-effective than ever before. It allows designers to explore new possibilities in product development and service delivery.

Conclusion

Design is one of the most critical components of creating killer innovations. By incorporating a design-driven approach into your innovation processes and understanding the importance of design thinking in innovation, you can create stronger and more successful solutions for your customers.

To learn more about innovating by design, reach out to an innovation agency such as Techtrend Group.

Phil McKinney is an innovator, podcaster, author, and speaker. He is the retired CTO of HP. Phil's book, Beyond The Obvious, shares his expertise and lessons learned on innovation and creativity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovation by Design: What Is It & Why Does It Matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Combining innovation by design with innovations in design creates products that are much more efficient and cost-effective than ever before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the invention of the interlocking plastic brick, a favorite toy of generations, LEGO was a poster child for business innovation - that is, until it wasn't.

The Danish toymaker's trajectory from industry trailblazer to the brink of bankruptcy to sustained recovery shows there's more to innovation than sheer luck or a wholesale focus on disruption.

"No innovation lasts forever," said David Robertson, a senior lecturer in operations management, in a recent webinar hosted by MIT Sloan Executive Education. "Sometimes you get hyper growth for a couple of years, sometimes you get steady growth for longer. But innovations run their course."

From its inception in the 1930s to its brush with bankruptcy in 2003 and its subsequent turnaround, LEGO tried every approach in the book to managing innovation, some resulting in spectacular success and others in great failure, said Robertson, author of " Brick by Brick: How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of Innovation and Conquered the Global Toy Industry."

Based on years of research and what he's seen at LEGO and other companies, Robertson advocates for an expansive approach to innovation - helping customers get more value from existing products by offering innovative complementary products, services, and business models.

Executive education opportunity

David Robertson teaches Innovating in Existing Markets: Reviving Mature Products and Services, a live online course from MIT Sloan Executive Education. The interactive program gives participants a set of tools and techniques for mastering new approaches to innovation and a structured framework for applying those tools and techniques within their organizations.

Learn More Collapse
"It's how Apple turned itself around, it's how GoPro got five years of 90% growth, it's how Sherwin-Williams gets twice the price per gallon of paint than other paints that are functional equivalents," explained Robertson, who also teaches an executive education course on the topic. "Marvel Comics turned itself around in the same way."

Among the innovation lessons to be learned from those firms: Have a variety of tools in the toolbox and don't be afraid to use them, listen deeply to your customers, and prepare for a steady diet of continuous reinvention to remain relevant, even as an iconic brand.

LEGO's brick-by-brick approach

LEGO was a small family business that grew steadily until the management reins were handed off in the late 1970s to the grandson of the founder and newly minted MBA, Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, who quickly unleashed a wave of innovation.

With the younger Kristiansen at the helm, LEGO branched out into the Technic brand - a more sophisticated building system to attract older children - and launched the first mini figure and fantasy action play sets, fueling 15 years of growth during which the company doubled in size every five years.

Growth slowed in the 1990s for a number of reasons, including a rise in digital play experiences from companies such as Nintendo and Sony, the rise of Toys "R" Us and other big box stores, the expiration of LEGO's brick patents, and the relocation of production of Mattel's and Hasbro's products to China, lowering the cost of their competitive toys.

LEGO responded in 1999 by refocusing its innovation efforts on revolutionary products that would reinvent the nature of play. "They became convinced that if all they offered was another box of bricks, they would become a commodity," Robertson said. "They believed they needed to disrupt themselves before somebody else did."

After a series of missteps that included the rollout of electronic toys for toddlers and a digitally connected action hero, LEGO found itself nearly bankrupt in 2003. In the rush to innovate, the firm lost sight of its core - physical construction-based play. After layoffs, emergency loans, and other measures aimed at staving off bankruptcy, LEGO turned those innovation miscues into a new strategy - one that precipitated a turnaround and laid the groundwork for further growth.

Among the key lessons that companies with a mature product line can follow to innovate:

Understand who your customer is, what they care about - that's the way to think about innovation.
David Robertson Senior Lecturer in Operations Management | MIT Sloan
Respect what made you great. Sometimes knowing where not to innovate is just as important as knowing where to innovate, Robertson said. LEGO learned that in a new digital landscape it was no longer enough to offer a box of plastic bricks - the brick had become a commodity. But the brick was still necessary, because that's what customers expected of the brand.

Through trial and error and a number of failed digital-only initiatives, LEGO discovered customers wanted digital experiences that complemented core offerings, rather than replaced them.

Centering innovation around the brick-based construction experience through new stories, games, and experiences, exemplified by the fan-favorite Bionicle product line, is what drove customers back to the LEGO brand and returned the company to profitability.

"You try to understand who your customer is, what they care about - that's the way we should think about innovation," Robertson said. "You need to be dating your customer, not fighting your competitor."

Maintain a customer-centric development process. When the big box stores took over from its ecosystem of small toy stores, LEGO lost an important channel for getting reliable customer feedback. LEGO began to evolve product development practices to support design thinking principles, empowering experts to come up with ideas for new products based on that critical customer input.

Today, LEGO regularly engages children in the process of character development, storytelling, and providing feedback on new playset ideas. "LEGO has a great expression for why they listen to kids when developing new toys," said Robertson. "Mads Nipper, the former head of marketing and product development, liked to say, 'Kids will never lie to you about whether something's fun or not.'"

Develop a family of complementary innovations to distinguish yourself from competitors. Innovation leaders need to lean on a range of different approaches for innovation, since tactics will vary depending on the scenario and business goals. It's important to nurture a culture that's able to shift gears if traditional methods don't deliver desired results.

"You need to learn how to play chords, not keys, on the innovation 'piano,'" Robertson said. "Pursuing multiple, complementary innovations that harmonize to create something is much better than any one key alone."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovating in existing markets: 3 lessons from LEGO | MIT Sloan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the invention of the interlocking plastic brick, a favorite toy of generations, LEGO was a poster child for business innovation - that is, until it wasn't. The Danish toymaker's trajectory from industry trailblazer to the brink of bankruptcy to sustained recovery shows there's more to innovation than sheer luck or a wholesale focus on disruption.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently received written diagnostics related to a knee injury. Language in the document included things like medial, chondral, effusion.. and quite a few other terms about knee structures.

Maybe I should have known this, but I had to ask what effusion meant.. It means swelling..

As the doctor explained the information, I realized I have a very basic understanding of how the knee joint functions. I know even less about proper medical terminology.

The doctor continued translating for me. This reminded me of something Daniel Kahneman said in Thinking Fast and Slow. "Learning medicine consists, in part, of learning the language of medicine."

Innovation

I wonder what this would be like if the tables were turned and I had shared an innovation diagnostic with my doctor about her practice? While some of the language about customer experience would likely make perfect sense, I imagine I'd have to translate some terminology as well, like VoC, customer jobs, product-market fit, etc.

I think it would be straightforward to then make the argument that learning innovation, in part, requires learning the language of innovation.

Utility

With the expanded vocabulary, my doctor is able to not only understand the key components of my body at play, but also to build on that to see how they fit into a complex system. She is then able to diagnose the issues contributing to my knee pain and prescribe appropriate therapy to help me see a return to proper performance.

I believe the same to be true for innovators. With better understanding of innovation terminology, innovators can understand the system of innovation. They can diagnose issues and prescribe changes that will improve performance.

Terms

I've been thinking about this in terms of both understanding the innovation system, and in terms of applying key innovation practices. I started with the notion of theory vs practice, but have added a layer in between for concepts at play.

This is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, I'm attempting to highlight some of the more prevalent and impactful topics employed at higher performing organizations.

Innovation

It occurred to me after I started gathering key topics that I should start by defining the topic of innovation itself.

Innovation: The delivery of new value for a customer. This generally involves providing better solutions (products, services, etc.) to address unmet needs.

Innovation Theories:

Effective innovation approaches are built on sound theory.

A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. It offers a framework to help understand the observations and the relationships between various attributes in the phenomena.

There are several prevalent theories that attempt to explain successful innovation.

Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) Theory: This theory explains that people 'hire' products and services to help them get a 'job' done. This essentially means that people are trying to make progress on various things in life, and discover/consume solutions that help them make their desired progress.

Theory of Disruptive Innovation: This theory explains how new technologies, products, or services initially target low-end or niche markets and gradually improve to disrupt established industries and markets, eventually displacing existing incumbents.

Diffusion of Innovations: This theory explains how, why, and at what rate new ideas, products, and technologies spread through social systems.

Empiricism: This emphasizes the importance of using data, evidence, and experimentation to inform the innovation process.

Lean: Within the context of innovation, Lean provides a complementary framework for creating customer value by removing imperfection (waste). This can be applied to both the innovation process itself and the solutions produced for customers.

These theories can serve as good foundations for innovation efforts.

Innovation Concepts:

Concepts are key topics that don't meet the criteria to be innovation theory (i.e., they aren't fully explanatory), but also aren't precise practices. They are often frameworks that carry with them particular processes and mindsets that innovators apply with their efforts.

Innovation / Growth Strategy: A plan that an organization employs to increase its market presence, revenue, and impact.

Ansoff Matrix / Growth Strategy Matrix: Frameworks that describe different strategies for achieving growth.

Radical vs Incremental Innovation: Two distinct approaches that organizations employ to drive progress and growth. Radical Innovation involves revolutionary and disruptive changes that create entirely new products, services, or business models. Incremental Innovation, on the other hand, focuses on continuous and gradual improvements to existing products, services, or processes.

Ambidexterity (explore vs exploit): The idea that organizations should simultaneously explore new and exploit existing capabilities to achieve innovation and growth.

Three Horizons: A framework that categorizes innovation efforts into short-term improvements, mid-term expansions, and long-term transformations, enabling organizations to balance their focus.

70-20-10 Rule: Suggests dividing resources among improving existing products (core), expanding into related areas (adjacent), and pursuing radical innovations (transformational) to achieve a balanced innovation portfolio.

Design Thinking: An iterative process that focuses on understanding user needs, redefining problems, and developing innovative solutions through creativity and empathy.

Customer Centricity: An organizational philosophy and approach that places the customer at the core of all business activities. It involves understanding and anticipating customer needs, preferences, and pain points to design products, services, and experiences that deliver superior value and satisfaction.

Voice of the Customer (VoC): A market research technique that systematically captures and analyzes customer preferences, expectations, and feedback to inform product development and improvement.

Needs-First: An approach that begins with identifying unmet customer needs and then developing solutions to address the targeted needs. Outcome-Driven Innovation is a good example of this.

Lean Startup: An approach that emphasizes rapid prototyping, experimentation, and validated learning to build successful products and businesses.

Double Diamond Thinking (Diverge-Converge): A visual model that contrasts creative thinking with judgment, where the "diverge" phase involves generating a wide range of ideas, and the "converge" phase involves refining and selecting the best ideas for further action.

Innovation Funnel: A conceptual framework that represents the stages of the innovation process from ideation to commercialization. It visualizes the progression of ideas through various phases, where the number of ideas gradually narrows down as they undergo evaluation and refinement.

Idea Management: A structured process for gathering, evaluating, and refining ideas through an innovation funnel.

Open Innovation: The idea that companies can and should use external ideas, resources, and collaborations to drive innovation rather than relying solely on internal capabilities.

Co-Creation: Collaborating with customers to develop new solutions.

Crowdsourcing: An idea gathering approach that seeks inputs from a large and diverse group of people, often through online platforms.

TRIZ (and SCAMPER): A problem-solving methodology that provides a systematic approach to overcome contradictions and generate innovative solutions by leveraging patterns and principles derived from the study of thousands of patents.

Business Model: A framework that defines how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value. It outlines the core activities, revenue streams, and key partnerships that sustain the business.

Product-Market Fit: A concept that refers to the degree of alignment between a product or service and the needs and preferences of a target market. Achieving product-market fit is critical for successful market adoption.

Innovation Practices:

Practices are specific tools and techniques that innovators use throughout the innovation process to pursue better solutions for their customers.

Market Selection: The process of identifying, evaluating, and determining specific markets to focus innovation efforts on.

Business Model Canvas / Lean Canvas: A 1-page template that helps innovators think through and describe key components of their new solution's business model. Evidence can then be gathered to refine and de-risk the model.

Qualitative Research: A research method that focuses on exploring and understanding customer needs through methods such as interviews, focus groups, and observations.

Quantitative Research: A research method that involves gathering and analyzing numerical data to derive statistical insights, often used to quantify market trends and customer preferences.

Customer Journey Mapping: This practice involves visualizing the customer's experience from initial contact through the entire engagement with a product or service.

Root Cause Analysis: The process of identifying the underlying challenges that result in unmet customer needs. These might be specific circumstances or contexts while executing the customer's job.

Metrics / KPI's / OKR's: The practice of determining success metrics for innovation efforts, baselining, measuring, and driving decisions based on objective feedback.

Ideation (Workshop, Challenge, Campaign, Hackathon, Pitch Day): The creative process of generating new ideas and concepts to address customer problems.

Concept Testing: The process of gathering feedback from potential customers to assess their reactions and perceptions of a new product or service before it is developed.

Rapid Prototyping: Creating quick and simple versions of products to gather feedback and make improvements.

Minimum Viable Product (MVP): The version of a new product that has the minimum features necessary to be released to early adopters, with the goal of learning from their feedback.

Agile Development: A product development approach that promotes iterative and incremental solution creation, allowing for quick adaptations to changing requirements. Example methods include Scrum, Kanban, XP, etc.

Design Sprints: A structured process that involves intensive ideation and prototyping to quickly validate and iterate on potential solutions.

Value Proposition: A clear statement that communicates the unique value a product or service offers to a specific target market.

Go-to-Market Strategy: A plan that outlines the steps to introduce and promote new products or services to a target audience.

Conclusion

As with medical practitioners, innovation professionals should familiarize themselves with key terminology. This will help them understand innovation systems, apply leading practices, and improve innovation performance.

This article can serve as a cheat-sheet for further learning. Each topic referenced might warrant a good deal of study and practice.

Given the large number of topics, how might you get started? I'd suggest digging into theory before practice to establish a good foundation.

I also mentioned the concept of an innovation diagnostic early in this article. They do exist and I happen to have one that I use. These are a good way to create focus within the large number of topics.

Happy innovating!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I recently received written diagnostics related to a knee injury. Language in the document included things like medial, chondral, effusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
「働く」をもっと良いものに。グーグルをはじめとするさまざまな組織の働き方の先進事例、研究、アイデアを集めました。ダイバーシティ・女性活躍・働き方改革施策に役立つヒントをご紹介します。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why the old ones are sometimes still the good ones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever seen a bridge collapse on TV? We only care about inspection and maintenance if it does not work. However, robotics are changing the inspection & maintenance landscape, and significant societal and political implications follow the magnitude of innovation. To pay due attention to these developments, the communication on innovation in robotics for inspection & maintenance has to play a role in informing and influencing the target groups for the successful adoption of robotics technologies.

The question on what role communications play in forming the perception of innovative technology was discussed in the workshop "Communicating innovation: What can we do better?" on May 25th, 2022. Experts explained how the innovation uptake should be supported by effective communication of innovations: explaining the benefits, tackling risks and fears of the audiences, and taking innovation closer to the general public.

Innovation & communication experts Marta Palau Franco and Juan Antonio Pavón Losada presented these topics in depth. Also, the recipe for successful innovation communication in robotics in inspection and maintenance was presented by Carlos Matilla Codesal, CEO of FuVeX.

Marta Palau Franco, project officer at euRobotics, working on digital innovation, presented how social context and perception can affect the way we communicate innovative technologies. For example, mentioning the word "drone" in 2014 and in 2022 may not bring the same images to mind to a person. This is due to changes in context and perception around the technology over the years, going from a more military-surveillance use to others such as logistics (e.g. Amazon shipping), entertainment (e.g. drone lights, filming, drone races, etc.), inspection & maintenance, agriculture, etc.

This example emphasizes that intentional engagement with the audience requires a good understanding of the different communication contexts (i.e. social, physical, cultural) and their perception or future expectations of the technology. How can we change someone's perception or expectations? We can do that by changing their current references or their interpretation of their prior references.

The people's perception of innovation might not necessarily correlate with the technological level of innovation. Marta introduced how good and bad communication can create different impressions on the technology. She presented 4 scenarios depending on the level of technological innovation and perception of being innovative (by people) (see the picture below).

The Balanced scenario is where the company's technological innovation is high and the company is perceived as such. When there is a high level of technological innovation, but the company is not perceived as innovative, we are in the scenario of the Bad communicator. Companies that find themselves in this group should review their communications and marketing strategy and plan. The scenario of the Illusionists presents a company with low technological innovation, but with strong communication and marketing skills.The company manages to raise audience's expectations, but risks losing the audience's trust if the technological innovation is not delivered.

To escape the trap of a bad communicator, whose message does not come across to the audience, Marta offered some advice:

Be aware of your communication context(s).

Do you know what people's perception of your company and technology is? If the perception is negative, try to change it.

Communicate strategically at different stages of technology development. Be flexible and adapt your communication strategy/plan when necessary. If you are in silence for a prolonged period, you are losing attention. Others will be filling in this gap.

Listen to feedback provided by your audience and value other perspectives. (e.g., surveys). Burst your bubble, and let in the external input.

Look for professional marketing and communications advice when needed. Take it seriously.

By communicating about your innovative technology, you are changing the social and cultural context, contributing to smoother (and safer) adoption of your technology.

Failure is part of the learning process.

The advice on building trust with stakeholders and communicating in a crisis was suggested by Juan Antonio Pavón Losada, a Project Manager Assistant at PRISMA Lab in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology at the University of Naples Federico II. Juan is working on the internal and external design and management of European projects' communication and dissemination.

Juan presented what symptoms define inefficient communication. Firstly, the communication misses the point if it is not consistent and relies on minimal efforts, i.e., "checking the boxes". In addition, the lack of a defined value proposition (communicating features and activities instead of value) and strategic positioning for the different audiences drives the communication astray from its goal.

How can we solve these mistakes and create efficient communication for inspection and maintenance? Juan has elaborated on the key concepts that are especially relevant in the field of inspection & maintenance. First, the goal of communication is to build relationships, not explain things. Trust, reliability and good reputation are the key goals. In the worst-case scenario, even when an accident happens, if the relationship with stakeholders is firm it will endure the crisis. The trust will absorb the impact of the issue. Also, sufficient attention to communication includes preparation for crisis - identifying who is eligible to speak? What would be the best channel to communicate? What should be the outputs: press release? Press conference? What would be the messages and possible consequences of the messages? Such preparation would help to react quicker and mitigate the crisis.

But, to build trust you need time. That means that the communication about your innovative solution has to be consistent and start early in the process. Apart from this, Juan proposed other tips for effective communication of innovation:

To be an engaged listener, know the domain and stakeholders, and learn the domain-specific language.

Express yourself clearly & constantly. Communication is like any relationship - don't expect people to be there to hear you when you have time. Make some time and show up more than once each 6 months.

Connect your content to the events happening in the world simultaneously.

Get communication professionals to do the work and develop high-quality material.

Engage in new collaborations & break the bubble of your organization to receive new inputs.

Make intentional language choices and find a balance between technical language and superficial claims without evidence (see the picture below).

Even though robotics in inspection & maintenance seems to be a rather technical and hardly engaging field for the general audience, Juan encouraged the audience to pay substantial attention to communication in their projects. The due attention converts to allocated budget, planning efforts, strategic positioning, and consistency. However, the main idea for the communication in this field revolves around the TRUST, which is built among stakeholders, whether they are tech providers, projects, institutions, developers, politicians, citizens, etc.

FuVex is a practical example of the successful communication of innovative robotics solutions in inspection & maintenance. FuVeX is a start-up whose mission is to replace manned helicopters with long-range drones in power line inspection and other aerial data capture operations. Carlos Matilla Codesal, CEO and co-founder of FuVeX, highlighted the importance of the intent behind the communication - every word must serve to reach the goal, whether it is to raise awareness, attract investment or find clients. In addition, instead of talking about technical details, which might be the most exhilarating on earth for the developers and engineers, the communication must revolve around the problem you solve. In robotics, this problem is not obviously and easily relatable to the general public (compared to, for example, problems in medicine). However, the responsibility to identify this value proposition and story is not on the audience but the one delivering the message. Vanity is not a strategy. Do not get into the trap of doing things because it feels great but is not valuable for the company. If you are communicating to an audience that is neither your customer nor your investor, but it feels great at the end of the day, you are wasting the resources on the things that matter just to your ego.

The next workshop "Policy issues in Robotics for Infrastructure & Maintenance" will be held during the European Robotics Forum in Rotterdam. If you happen to participate in the Forum, you are welcome to join the workshop on June 29th, at 9.50am (CEST). The experts will discuss how AI regulation affects the domain of Robotics for Infrastructure and Maintenance, what direction the policy is moving to and what are the issues in the pan-European legislation.

tags: c-Industrial-Automation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Communicating innovation: What can we do better? - Robohub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever seen a bridge collapse on TV? We only care about inspection and maintenance if it does not work. However, robotics are changing the inspection & maintenance landscape, and significant societal and political implications follow the magnitude of innovation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Innovation feeds on interaction, information, and collaboration. It leverages the power of two-way conversations and requires the production of enriched knowledge. Cooperation in innovation is often regarded as implicit rather than something that must be continuously nurtured. This blog highlights three ways to communicate the key deliverables of your innovation activities with ITONICS.

Get it right, and you can, over time, build a robust culture of innovation in your organization. Good communication and reporting in innovation can enhance your ability to innovate by integrating different viewpoints, joint ownership, and buy-in. For these reasons, collaboration is a core tenet built into the ITONICS Innovation OS.

Why you need good communication as part of end-to-end innovation

Neglecting communication as part of the innovation journey can be costly. Developing ideas and processes requires collaborative input as a means of stress testing, and organization-wide commitment is needed to ensure the necessary resilience to carry out innovation projects.

By raising awareness and eliciting proactive responses from teams, strategic and unified communication can help drive growth initiatives. Good communication increases transparency and improves collaboration. It continuously draws attention to innovation projects' what, why, and how.
How communication supports innovation:
Over time, building a culture of innovation demands consistent and strategic communication and reporting. Communication is one of the most crucial threads that weave together activities across geographies, business units, and innovation activities.

Three ways to communicate key results of your innovation activities with ITONICS

1. Show interactive and dynamic views

Showing your progress on the ITONICS Radar to a larger audience can help you communicate critical insights in an interactive and dynamic radar view. By showing a live radar on your intranet or public-facing website, your audience can view real-time information and interact with your radar to encourage involvement. Use Embed to include a specific view from your ITONICS system on your website or intranet to help you communicate results and insights and keep stakeholders informed.

Step 1: Ask our Innovation Success Managers to activate ITONICS Embed for you to try for FREE.

Step 2: To embed content in your websites, ask your system administrator to add an Embed token that you can easily use to show your content outside the ITONICS system.

Step 3: Within each organization in ITONICS, you can create different spaces that allow you to spread responsibility across business units or diverse projects and topics. These are called workspaces. To use your Embed token, navigate to the specific workspace from which you want to use the content.

Step 4: Click on the Embed icon, select your preferences and copy the unique iframe code to embed into your site easily.

In the Embed above, you can see a technology radar which you can interact with straight from our page! Would you like to try it yourself?

2. Get presentation-ready exports in one click

Keeping stakeholders informed is part of successful innovation. You will need to communicate progress, key findings, and KPIs to get the necessary commitment for innovation investments. Quickly accessing relevant views from your ITONICS system to share in a presentation or email helps you provide essential details to stakeholders.

How to quickly get presentation-ready views from your ITONICS system:

Step 1: According to your ITONICS plan, you can export Radar, Roadmap, and Elements. Navigate to the specific view you would like to export.

Step 2: Click the export button to export your view as a PDF or PNG. Locate your download in your Downloads folder.

Step 3: Insert your export in a presentation or email, and decide who needs to be included. Have a clear objective for why you are communicating specific information with the respective groups-i.e., are you trying to raise awareness or alignment, secure buy-in, and commitment, or call for concrete solutions or actions?

3. In-system newsletters to encourage participation

Captivating emails can significantly support your efforts to get teams involved, excited, and committed to driving innovation within your organization. Regular communication to share progress, exciting submissions, and inspirations to spark disruptive ideas help drive participation and keep teams across your organization engaged and motivated.

How to use in-system emails in ITONICS:

Step 1: According to your ITONICS plan, application owners can set up a newsletter to be sent straight from your ITONICS Innovation OS.

Step 2: Create the email template you will use to communicate with teams inside your organization.

Step 3: Manage your newsletters by testing or previewing emails in your ITONICS system. You can also export your mail as a PDF.

What's next?

Want to learn more about the features and functionalities of the ITONICS Innovation OS? Get started with a free software demo!

Get started with the ITONICS Innovation OS

Have more time?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Communicate Key Findings from Innovation Activities | ITONICS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover three ways to communicate key findings from innovation activities. Learn how to build a culture of innovation in your organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the skills needed for innovation? | READ online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The literature indicates that a large number of skills are required for innovation, ranging from technical skills to “soft” skills and the ability to learn. Different individuals, firms and industries may draw on different skill mixes at different times nevertheless, many skills appear relevant across the innovation spectrum. Human capital is an essential input to innovation, but what are the skills and attributes that human capital must possess? This chapter provides some insights on skills for innovation drawn from the literature and on the mix of these skills which economies may require. It then briefly discusses emerging themes in skill requirements. A final section summarises the chapter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr Samuel West, the psychologist who created The Museum Of Failure, argues that the best way to drive innovation within organizations is to remove the fear of failure. The fear of failure can lead corporate innovation teams to only pursue safe bets. When innovation teams work on safe bets, it is highly likely that they are simply improving the company's current products. To explore new opportunities, leaders have to create psychologically safe spaces for people to try new things and fail.

The best way for innovation teams to fail is quickly and cheaply. This means that leaders and teams have to be paying attention to early signals of whether the innovation project is on track. This has been a challenge for both corporations and startups. There is often a commitment to an innovation project that can drive leaders to keep making bets on an idea they believe in. This can quickly become expensive, like in the case of Quibi, which raised $1.75 billion from investors before failing within a year of launch.

Instead of investing in their pet projects, successful leaders manage their innovation portfolios like a funnel. They start by making multiple small bets with the expectation that those teams will go out and test their ideas. The choice of ideas to invest in should be based on clear strategic guidance about where the company wants to play when it comes to innovation.

However, getting an early investment does not mean that leaders are committed to any specific idea. Instead, the early investment provides teams with a chance to generate evidence on whether their ideas can be successful. Over time, leaders can then make decisions about which ideas to kill. There are typically four good reasons to kill an idea during the various stages of innovation.
Lack of Desirability
The first reason to kill an idea is whether there is anybody in the real world who cares about the product or service the team is thinking of creating. What problems are they solving and for which customer segment? Is there a real customer need out there? How do we reach these customers? It is often hard for innovators to accept that customers don't really care how clever they are. Customers care about their own problems and aspirations. As such, if the team does not have a value proposition that resonates with customers, that idea should be killed.
Lack of Feasibility
The second reason to kill an idea speaks to the technical risks in any innovation project. Does our organization have the capability to create the breakthrough technologies we are imagining? If not, can we find a partner that can help us to develop the technology? A lot of software products may not present that much technical risk. However, for more ambitious innovation projects in the automotive, healthcare or pharmaceutical industries, technical risk can be a genuine concern. If your company does not have the capabilities to create the product or service, there should be strong consideration to killing that idea.
Lack of Viability
The third reason to kill an idea is whether our company can create and deliver the value to customers at a profit. This question speaks to the viability of a team's business model. Where will they create and deliver value? How will they reach customers? How much will it cost our company to create and deliver value? How much will customers pay? How will the team get to breakeven or profitability? It is distinctly possible to make products people like and lose money doing it. If this is the challenge an idea is facing, that idea should be killed.
Lack of Adaptability
The final reason to kill an idea is whether our company can take the product or service to scale. It is important to note that finding a real customer need is not the same thing as finding a market. There are several reasons a business environment may not be ready for an idea to scale. For example, a product may depend on the successful commercialization of other companies' innovations before it can scale. In this case, timing is important. It is also possible that the costs of scaling can render a business model unprofitable and unsustainable. If a team cannot solve these scaling challenges, that idea should be killed.
What About The Pivot?
One common myth from the Lean Startup movement is that innovation teams can pivot any idea to success. This is not always the case. Sometimes ideas have to be killed. What the Lean Startup method provides is a process for finding the right ideas to scale and also the right ideas to kill. The goal is not to kill ideas the moment they run into challenges. Teams should be given some time to try different options for their business model (e.g. customers segments, value propositions and channels). The runway of resources that teams have to try these pivots should be known upfront. When that runway comes to an end and the teams are still not showing progress, those ideas should be killed!

_________
This article was first published on Forbes where Tendayi Viki is a regular contributor. Learn more at www.tendayiviki.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four Good Reasons To Kill Innovative Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Samuel West, the psychologist who created The Museum Of Failure, argues that the best way to drive innovation within organizations is to remove the fear of failure. The fear of failure can lead corporate innovation teams to only pursue safe bets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New book: Sleeping Beauties examines the mysteries of dormant innovations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human innovations often arise "ahead of their time," but evolution, we’re told, innovates only in response to environmental conditions. In his new book, Sleeping Beauties: The Mystery of Dormant Innovations in Nature and Culture, SFI External Professor Andreas Wagner urges us to consider another possibility.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
💡Interesante artículo. Aquí detalles relevantes: La privación total de sueño (TSD) mostró beneficios en algunos pacientes con trastorno depresivo mayor (MDD). El estudio encontró que aproximadamente el 43% de estos pacientes experimentó una mejora en su estado de ánimo después de una noche de privación de sueño. La mejora en el estado de ánimo se asoció con una mayor conectividad entre la amígdala y la corteza cingulada anterior. Experimento 1: En individuos sanos, se observó que la privación total de sueño (TSD) deterioraba el estado de ánimo, pero aquellos con mayor conectividad entre la amígdala y la corteza cingulada anterior (ACC) mostraban menos empeoramiento. Experimento 2: En pacientes con trastorno depresivo mayor (MDD), la TSD mejoraba el estado de ánimo en aproximadamente el 43% de los participantes. Al igual que en individuos sanos, una mayor conectividad amígdala-ACC Conclusión: ✔️ Los hallazgos sugieren que esta conexión cerebral entre amígdala y la corteza cingulada anterior (ACC) puede ser un indicador de resiliencia. ✔️ La mejora en el estado de ánimo de las personas con trastorno depresivo mayor (MDD) tras la privación total de sueño (TSD) se debe a un fenómeno observado en algunos casos de depresión. La privación de sueño puede actuar como un antidepresivo rápido y temporal, mejorando el estado de ánimo en ciertos individuos con MDD.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Do you want to get more out of your business data? Data mining can help you uncover hidden patterns, trends, and insights that can boost your performance, decision-making, and innovation. But what are the best data mining tools to use? In this article, we will introduce you to some of the most popular and powerful data mining tools available, and how they can benefit your business. Whether you are a beginner or an expert, a coder or a non-coder, a small or a large business, you will find a data mining tool that matches your goals and requirements. What data mining tool do you use or want to use for your business?

Customer service is not only about answering questions and solving problems. It's also about creating positive experiences, building trust, and fostering loyalty with your customers. To do that, you need to have some essential customer service skills that can help you communicate effectively, empathize with your customers, and resolve issues quickly and satisfactorily. In this article, we'll explore what are the most important customer service skills to have and how to develop them. What are some of the customer service skills that you use or want to improve?

Amy Edmondson Amy Edmondson is an Influencer

Prof @ Harvard Business School; Author of "Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well"

Learning how to learn from failure is hard - there's no shortcut or comfortable alternative to facing our failures honestly and identifying what went wrong. This superb article in Forbes from Dr Margie Warrell looks at how we can get better at making the most of our failures, and includes many nuggets from our conversation on the #LiveBravePodcast!

A medida que nos acercamos al final de 2023, vale la pena pensar en compasión, empatía, gratitud y amor. La comprensión de ello, es entender a lo que llamamos felicidad y éxito. Somos un sistema diminuto inmerso en millones de sistemas, por eso es importante evolucionar mental, física y espiritualmente. Si uno de ellos se altera, todos los sistemas se alteran, inmunológico, excretor, nervioso, etc. Usando una metáfora, estas 4 cualidades personales fortalecen el sistema inmunológico mental para adaptarse al entorno real, el ruido, la luz, la contaminación y todo aquello que te altera.

To view or add a comment, sign in

🚀 El Futuro es Hoy: Las 5 Habilidades Clave para el 2027 ¡Saludos!, 👋 A medida que avanzamos hacia el 2027, el panorama profesional y personal se transforma a pasos agigantados. La velocidad del cambio requiere habilidades específicas para prosperar en esta nueva era. Aquí te presento las 5 habilidades que considero fundamentales: 1. Flexibilidad Cognitiva: En un mundo de evolución constante, la capacidad de adaptarse y cambiar de mentalidad es esencial. La flexibilidad cognitiva nos permite abrazar la novedad y encontrar soluciones creativas. Encontrar la capacidad para rediseñar nuestras redes neuronales serea una ventaja competitiva en el humano del futuro. 2. Agilidad de Aprendizaje: El aprendizaje continuo es la nueva moneda. La velocidad con la que adquirimos y aplicamos nuevos conocimientos determina nuestro éxito. La agilidad de aprendizaje se convierte en el motor de la adaptabilidad. Desaprender rápido es tan importante como aprender. 3. Cuestionamiento y Asociación: Preguntar el por qué y buscar conexiones inesperadas es el motor del pensamiento disruptivo. Cuestionar lo establecido y asociar ideas aparentemente dispares desencadena la innovación. La inteligencia artificial generativa está dotada de inteligencia lógica, los humanos de una más profunda. 4. Experimentación: Aprender haciendo. La experimentación nos lleva más allá de las teorías y nos sumerge en la práctica. Los errores se convierten en oportunidades de aprendizaje, impulsando la mejora continua. El conocimiento no será problema en el futuro, será democrátizado, pero lo inesperado y las nuevas formas naceran de la experiementación, incluído la educación. 5. Networking: La red de contactos es un activo invaluable. En un mundo interconectado, el networking no solo es sobre a quién conoces, sino cómo puedes colaborar. Las conexiones significativas son la clave del progreso. El 2027 nos desafía a ser más ágiles, curiosos y colaborativos que nunca. ¿Estás listo para el futuro? #FuturoDelTrabajo #Habilidades2027 #AprendizajeContinuo #Innovación #Networking

🌟 ¡Innovación en acción! 🚀 Estamos emocionados de compartir con todos ustedes una joya tecnológica: Pika.art 🤖✨, una plataforma que utiliza inteligencia artificial para crear videos asombrosos. 🎥 ¿Te imaginas poder tener videos personalizados, diseñados por la inteligencia artificial? ¡Pues bien, ahora es posible gracias a Pika.art! 🌈 🚀 La demanda está por las nubes y las plazas para la lista de espera se están llenando rápidamente. ¡No te quedes atrás! Regístrate ahora y sé de los primeros en experimentar la revolución de la creación de contenido. 🌐 ¿Quieres ser el primero en conocer las últimas innovaciones? ¡Síguenos para estar siempre a la vanguardia! 🚀🔍 ✅ Regístrate aquí: https://pika.art/login ⏰ ¡No esperes más! Únete a la espera y sé parte de la evolución en la creación de contenido visual. 🚀✨ ¡Vas a darle vida a tus ideas!#PikaArt #InteligenciaArtificial #Creatividad #Innovación #VideoConIA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jhon Cano on LinkedIn: An interesting proposal has given us Gartner. Very adjusted and exact to...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An interesting proposal has given us Gartner. Very adjusted and exact to reality. Given the latest developments caused by generative artificial intelligence...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you make cars or mattresses, operate a hospital or a grocery store, or are in some other business, successful innovation depends on understanding what’s driving the technological changes in your industry and anticipating what product and service features consumers will value in the future. In this article, the author describes her proven system for gaining those vital insights. The first step is to look back at the evolution of your business’s technology and identify three to six dimensions where advances have significantly furthered its development—“big picture” dimensions such as cost, comfort, and safety. Next, plot the utility curve for each dimension (to see how progress on that dimension correlates with customer appreciation) and pinpoint the technology’s current position on the curve. Third, decide where to focus your innovation efforts—a task made easier by using the author’s matrix for scoring each dimension according to its importance to customers, its potential for improvement, and the ease with which improvements can be made. By following this three-step approach, a host of diverse companies are already creating promising new products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently received written diagnostics related to a knee injury. Language in the document included things like medial, chondral, effusion.. and quite a few other terms about knee structures.

Maybe I should have known this, but I had to ask what effusion meant.. It means swelling..

As the doctor explained the information, I realized I have a very basic understanding of how the knee joint functions. I know even less about proper medical terminology.

The doctor continued translating for me. This reminded me of something Daniel Kahneman said in Thinking Fast and Slow. "Learning medicine consists, in part, of learning the language of medicine."

Innovation

I wonder what this would be like if the tables were turned and I had shared an innovation diagnostic with my doctor about her practice? While some of the language about customer experience would likely make perfect sense, I imagine I'd have to translate some terminology as well, like VoC, customer jobs, product-market fit, etc.

I think it would be straightforward to then make the argument that learning innovation, in part, requires learning the language of innovation.

Utility

With the expanded vocabulary, my doctor is able to not only understand the key components of my body at play, but also to build on that to see how they fit into a complex system. She is then able to diagnose the issues contributing to my knee pain and prescribe appropriate therapy to help me see a return to proper performance.

I believe the same to be true for innovators. With better understanding of innovation terminology, innovators can understand the system of innovation. They can diagnose issues and prescribe changes that will improve performance.

Terms

I've been thinking about this in terms of both understanding the innovation system, and in terms of applying key innovation practices. I started with the notion of theory vs practice, but have added a layer in between for concepts at play.

This is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, I'm attempting to highlight some of the more prevalent and impactful topics employed at higher performing organizations.

Innovation

It occurred to me after I started gathering key topics that I should start by defining the topic of innovation itself.

Innovation: The delivery of new value for a customer. This generally involves providing better solutions (products, services, etc.) to address unmet needs.

Innovation Theories:

Effective innovation approaches are built on sound theory.

A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. It offers a framework to help understand the observations and the relationships between various attributes in the phenomena.

There are several prevalent theories that attempt to explain successful innovation.

Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) Theory: This theory explains that people 'hire' products and services to help them get a 'job' done. This essentially means that people are trying to make progress on various things in life, and discover/consume solutions that help them make their desired progress.

Theory of Disruptive Innovation: This theory explains how new technologies, products, or services initially target low-end or niche markets and gradually improve to disrupt established industries and markets, eventually displacing existing incumbents.

Diffusion of Innovations: This theory explains how, why, and at what rate new ideas, products, and technologies spread through social systems.

Empiricism: This emphasizes the importance of using data, evidence, and experimentation to inform the innovation process.

Lean: Within the context of innovation, Lean provides a complementary framework for creating customer value by removing imperfection (waste). This can be applied to both the innovation process itself and the solutions produced for customers.

These theories can serve as good foundations for innovation efforts.

Innovation Concepts:

Concepts are key topics that don't meet the criteria to be innovation theory (i.e., they aren't fully explanatory), but also aren't precise practices. They are often frameworks that carry with them particular processes and mindsets that innovators apply with their efforts.

Innovation / Growth Strategy: A plan that an organization employs to increase its market presence, revenue, and impact.

Ansoff Matrix / Growth Strategy Matrix: Frameworks that describe different strategies for achieving growth.

Radical vs Incremental Innovation: Two distinct approaches that organizations employ to drive progress and growth. Radical Innovation involves revolutionary and disruptive changes that create entirely new products, services, or business models. Incremental Innovation, on the other hand, focuses on continuous and gradual improvements to existing products, services, or processes.

Ambidexterity (explore vs exploit): The idea that organizations should simultaneously explore new and exploit existing capabilities to achieve innovation and growth.

Three Horizons: A framework that categorizes innovation efforts into short-term improvements, mid-term expansions, and long-term transformations, enabling organizations to balance their focus.

70-20-10 Rule: Suggests dividing resources among improving existing products (core), expanding into related areas (adjacent), and pursuing radical innovations (transformational) to achieve a balanced innovation portfolio.

Design Thinking: An iterative process that focuses on understanding user needs, redefining problems, and developing innovative solutions through creativity and empathy.

Customer Centricity: An organizational philosophy and approach that places the customer at the core of all business activities. It involves understanding and anticipating customer needs, preferences, and pain points to design products, services, and experiences that deliver superior value and satisfaction.

Voice of the Customer (VoC): A market research technique that systematically captures and analyzes customer preferences, expectations, and feedback to inform product development and improvement.

Needs-First: An approach that begins with identifying unmet customer needs and then developing solutions to address the targeted needs. Outcome-Driven Innovation is a good example of this.

Lean Startup: An approach that emphasizes rapid prototyping, experimentation, and validated learning to build successful products and businesses.

Double Diamond Thinking (Diverge-Converge): A visual model that contrasts creative thinking with judgment, where the "diverge" phase involves generating a wide range of ideas, and the "converge" phase involves refining and selecting the best ideas for further action.

Innovation Funnel: A conceptual framework that represents the stages of the innovation process from ideation to commercialization. It visualizes the progression of ideas through various phases, where the number of ideas gradually narrows down as they undergo evaluation and refinement.

Idea Management: A structured process for gathering, evaluating, and refining ideas through an innovation funnel.

Open Innovation: The idea that companies can and should use external ideas, resources, and collaborations to drive innovation rather than relying solely on internal capabilities.

Co-Creation: Collaborating with customers to develop new solutions.

Crowdsourcing: An idea gathering approach that seeks inputs from a large and diverse group of people, often through online platforms.

TRIZ (and SCAMPER): A problem-solving methodology that provides a systematic approach to overcome contradictions and generate innovative solutions by leveraging patterns and principles derived from the study of thousands of patents.

Business Model: A framework that defines how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value. It outlines the core activities, revenue streams, and key partnerships that sustain the business.

Product-Market Fit: A concept that refers to the degree of alignment between a product or service and the needs and preferences of a target market. Achieving product-market fit is critical for successful market adoption.

Innovation Practices:

Practices are specific tools and techniques that innovators use throughout the innovation process to pursue better solutions for their customers.

Market Selection: The process of identifying, evaluating, and determining specific markets to focus innovation efforts on.

Business Model Canvas / Lean Canvas: A 1-page template that helps innovators think through and describe key components of their new solution's business model. Evidence can then be gathered to refine and de-risk the model.

Qualitative Research: A research method that focuses on exploring and understanding customer needs through methods such as interviews, focus groups, and observations.

Quantitative Research: A research method that involves gathering and analyzing numerical data to derive statistical insights, often used to quantify market trends and customer preferences.

Customer Journey Mapping: This practice involves visualizing the customer's experience from initial contact through the entire engagement with a product or service.

Root Cause Analysis: The process of identifying the underlying challenges that result in unmet customer needs. These might be specific circumstances or contexts while executing the customer's job.

Metrics / KPI's / OKR's: The practice of determining success metrics for innovation efforts, baselining, measuring, and driving decisions based on objective feedback.

Ideation (Workshop, Challenge, Campaign, Hackathon, Pitch Day): The creative process of generating new ideas and concepts to address customer problems.

Concept Testing: The process of gathering feedback from potential customers to assess their reactions and perceptions of a new product or service before it is developed.

Rapid Prototyping: Creating quick and simple versions of products to gather feedback and make improvements.

Minimum Viable Product (MVP): The version of a new product that has the minimum features necessary to be released to early adopters, with the goal of learning from their feedback.

Agile Development: A product development approach that promotes iterative and incremental solution creation, allowing for quick adaptations to changing requirements. Example methods include Scrum, Kanban, XP, etc.

Design Sprints: A structured process that involves intensive ideation and prototyping to quickly validate and iterate on potential solutions.

Value Proposition: A clear statement that communicates the unique value a product or service offers to a specific target market.

Go-to-Market Strategy: A plan that outlines the steps to introduce and promote new products or services to a target audience.

Conclusion

As with medical practitioners, innovation professionals should familiarize themselves with key terminology. This will help them understand innovation systems, apply leading practices, and improve innovation performance.

This article can serve as a cheat-sheet for further learning. Each topic referenced might warrant a good deal of study and practice.

Given the large number of topics, how might you get started? I'd suggest digging into theory before practice to establish a good foundation.

I also mentioned the concept of an innovation diagnostic early in this article. They do exist and I happen to have one that I use. These are a good way to create focus within the large number of topics.

Happy innovating!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I recently received written diagnostics related to a knee injury. Language in the document included things like medial, chondral, effusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These are the offerings and experiences that transform society. These often result from extensive new capabilities. They often bring significant structural changes to a market and in the relationship between industry, community, and government. They will usually create new areas of government regulation. Examples include cellular telephones and networks, MRI, autonomous vehicles, drones, the internet, and quantum computing.
Disruptive
Completly new categories of offerings that displace previous classes that bring a significant change in the value equation. They usually come from redefining needs and often involve entirely new business models. They can also come from a breakthrough in new technologies and service methods being applied to define solutions that work substantially better than previous offerings. Disruptive innovations usually disrupt entire industries and often result in the demise of organizations that they disrupt. Some examples are Netflix, AWS, digital photography, Apple, Microsoft, SalesForce.com, Uber/Lyft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla.
Breakthrough
Completely new offerings or new ways of offering inside of existing categories that substantially raise the bar on the value of the experiences they deliver. They will usually result from significant changes to a technology platform and new configurations that take an offering into a new market. Examples include E-learning, subscription for unlimited viewings of movie theatre chains, Ring, Google Nest, Sirius Radio, Airbnb, Zillow, Expedia voice assistants such as Cortana, Alexa, and Siri.
Incremental
Incremental improvements in existing offerings can be in terms, price, performance, accessibility, or other value. These usually result from things like new technologies being integrated, new features and capabilities being added, changes that reduce cost, and new sales channels. Examples include subscription meal kits, Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, iPhone, digital subscriptions, Coca-Cola.

https://www.advisorycloud.com/profile/Robert-Stone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transformative These are the offerings and experiences that transform society. These often result from extensive new capabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MEREMAIHI
Innovation. It's a word that we hear a lot today. What's it all about?

SOL
Innovation can be hard to explain as it's used by a lot of people to describe a lot of different things.

HOLLY
Is innovation only about big changes - or could it be about small steps?

MEREMAIHI
Is it just about new ideas - or can it be about improved ideas?

SOL
Is it about different ways of doing things - or is it only about new products?

HOLLY
So do different innovations have anything in common?

MEREMAIHI
All innovation involves change.

SOL
It's about creating value for people by solving a problem or meeting a need.

HOLLY
Through coming up with new ideas or new ways of doing things.

MEREMAIHI
Or by making improvements to something that already exists.

HOLLY
Innovation is an activity that begins with an idea.

It might result in a product that you sell or in a new way of doing something.

However, all innovation needs to create value for people. Otherwise, it's not innovation, it's just an idea.

SOL
All innovation involves a process.

Most innovation involves these steps.

Coming up with ideas.

HOLLY
Choosing and developing the idea.

MEREMAIHI
Researching, developing and testing.

SOL
Convincing others.

HOLLY
Seeing your idea being used or adopted by others .

SOL
This makes it sound easy, but sometimes some steps take longer than you planned or you need to repeat them or even start again.

HOLLY
There are lots of different kinds of innovation. Different types of people are innovators too.

MEREMAIHI
Each innovation process involves a unique range of people - people with different personalities like leaders, followers, risk-takers, doers, planners.

Also people with different knowledge and skills, like scientists, engineers, technologists, manufacturers, marketing experts and lawyers.

SOL
All these people might not even be in the same place at the same time.

HOLLY
So why do we need innovation?

MEREMAIHI
To make the most of opportunities to develop new ways of doing things in a changing world.

SOL
To solve the problems we face now and in the future to keep New Zealand moving forward.

HOLLY
Innovation can benefit all New Zealanders.

EDUCATOR
Best of all, the skills, attitudes and values needed for an innovative society can be fostered from a young age through formal and informal learning opportunities.

Creating an innovative society starts in the classroom.

Creating innovators can start here!

Acknowledgements
Meremaihi Jackson
Sol Maxwell
Holly Clout
Moana Ete

anim8a
Hutt Intermediate School

Studio furniture supplied by FURNWARE LTD

Additional footage from 'Created Here' courtesy of NZTE

Comvita
Revolution Fibres
Scion
Zespri
Riddet Institute
AgResearch, Invermay
Potatopak
Zealong Tea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This engaging video conveys key aspects of innovation for students. It explores the meaning and the process of innovation, why it's important for New Zealand and how skills and attitudes needed for an innovative society can be fostered from a young age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ten essentials for an innovator's Christmas list...

Christmas, as my 6 year old never tires of reminding me, is coming. Never mind that technically it's a month away and forget the efforts I make, Scrooge-like, not to allow any trace of the season to cross our threshold until at least 1st December. She excitedly points out that everywhere - the TV and online adverts, the shop decorations, even some of our early bird neighbours with their flashing light displays - everywhere the signals are unmistakable. 'It's nearly here!'

Which prompts her to write lists, long and getting longer, of gift ideas in case Santa is short of the relevant information about this year's must-have items without which a six-year old's world can never be complete. I feel like King Canute, water lapping around my ankles as I desperately try to stem the tide, inevitability fast approaching on my horizon.

In a desperate attempt to distract myself from these seasonal waves I began thinking about the kind of list I might put together for a would-be innovating organization. Assuming there was an innovation equivalent of the old gentleman at the North Pole what might he be working on with his elves right now? What are his stock-pickers pulling off the warehouse shelves and loading up on the sleigh? What might be on the must-have list for an innovation Christmas?

Turns out to be a useful exercise in choice editing. Just like my daughter, my early lists grew and grew like Topsy, sprawling over several pages. And containing lots of items in the 'Motherhood and apple pie' class - things which were unarguably 'good' for innovation but a bit vague in how they might actually be implemented. 'Make innovation happen every day in every way' or 'Put innovation at the heart of everything you do', or ' Keep reinventing the organization' kind of thing - nice sentiments but not exactly helpful.

Back to the drawing board, trying to focus on things which not only represent important elements but also have some specific tools to help put them into practice. So here's the result. If you're looking for inspiration for your seasonal innovation shopping here's a few ideas that might help. (And if you believe in an Innovation Santa they might be useful items to add to the 'what I'd really like' list you're about to send up the chimney)

First the wrapping paper.

Innovation matters. If we don't change what we offer the world (our products and services) and the ways we create and deliver them (our processes) then there's a good chance that we won't survive long in today's turbulent market-place. The issue isn't about whether or not to innovate but how?

The good news is that we've learned a lot about this challenge; whilst innovation still remains a risky business there are some key insights which can help stack the deck in our favour. Over a hundred years of research consistently shows that successful innovators ....

Manage innovation as a process. Innovation isn't like the cartoon moment with a light bulb flashing on above someone's head. It's a journey, involving key steps (search, select, implement) to create value from ideas. Anyone might get lucky once but in order to repeat the innovation trick we need a process for managing this; it doesn't have to be bureaucratic but it does have to be systematic. So to help you work with this one there are plenty of frameworks which you can adapt, checklists to make sure you've got a system for innovation - you could do a lot worse than start with the framework which the ISO launched this year for an Innovation Management Standard...

Explore all the innovation space available. There are many different ways to innovate, from changing our offering, updating our processes , exploring new market contexts and even switching our underlying business model. It's a little like an innovation compass and the challenge is to make sure we explore the full 360 degrees of opportunity. Once again there are plenty of tools to help with this - try looking at Doblin's ten types of innovation, play with the 4Ps innovation compass or explore Blue Ocean thinking

Have an innovation strategy - a clear roadmap of where and how innovation will take the business forward. It's easy to wave the flag and shout about how important innovation is; serious players think through their strategy for dealing with it, share the roadmap and make sure that people buy into it. And there are plenty of stocking fillers here to help with strategic positioning and analysis, from good old PEST and SWOT through to more thorough future scanning, scenarios and road mapping and discovery-driven planning.

Pay attention to the small stuff. Although radical changes are the ones which hit the headlines the underlying economic evidence is clear; most innovation, most of the time, is about doing what we do a little better. Incremental innovation of this kind adds up and has the additional advantage that it is much lower in risk, advancing slowly along well-known frontiers. This is where the lean toolkit becomes a must-have - whether it's tools like fishbones and process maps for continuous improvement of processes or value analysis and product feature maps for our offerings

Mobilize the mainstream. Many organizations have specialists who are given the responsibility for innovation - a bit like James Bond, they have the 'licence to innovate'. But every human being comes fitted with the standard equipment to enable us to be creative, finding solutions to problems and coming up with new ideas. Smart innovators mobilize this creativity across the entire organization. And there's a rich toolbox to help with this one, from simple variants on the humble suggestion scheme to powerful collaboration platforms to ensure voices get heard, ideas get shared and collective intelligence puts its weight behind the big strategic challenges facing the organization.

Make connections. Innovation has always been a multi-player game rather than a solo act and these days the talk is all about 'open innovation'. Simply put, in a world rich in knowledge even the largest organization has to recognize that 'not all the smart people work for us'. The game has shifted from one where knowledge creation and ownership is key to one where managing knowledge flow is the critical ingredient. The good news for smaller firms is that this levels the playing field; you don't have to have all the resources for innovation as long as you know where they are and how to connect to them. By now some version of 'open innovation' should be at the heart of your strategy and there are plenty of tools and frameworks to help you work out what connections you need and how to build them. It might also be worth looking at your absorptive capacity - how well placed are you to take advantage of all the rich knowledge that's out there, making sure you don't get a kind of 'knowledge indigestion' as a result of gorging yourself on everything that's on offer!

Build an innovative organization. Companies like 3M and Google are famous for giving their staff time and space to explore and experiment, not just because they are generous employers trying to attract and retain talented employees. What they're really doing is actively trying to recreate the entrepreneurial spirit which began their businesses. They believe that embedding that spirit in 'the way we do things round here' gives them a real long-term edge - everyone is an entrepreneur. But they also know that creating that kind of climate needs work - on the physical layout (to make sure people have the chance to creatively collide) on time (to allow ideas to emerge and incubate), on support and space (to provide fertile environments for creativity) and on their approach to 'failure' (not punishing people when things don't work but encouraging an experimental learning approach). Maybe take a look at some of the tools available to help you assess how much of a creative climate you have - and focus on what you might usefully work on to develop it further.

Co-create with users. Learning from markets has always been important but customers aren't passive, they can also be a rich source of ideas for innovation. Finding ways to tap into user innovation not only generates more diverse ideas, it also helps create a partnership with the marketplace which improves adoption of innovation. People will use things, work with processes, feel a sense of 'ownership' if they've been involved in the innovation process. And the good news here is that we have plenty of tools and frameworks to help - starting with design thinking and embracing approaches like lead user methods ...

Accept failure - innovation is omelette territory and the odd broken egg is an important part. The key is to learn from failures and use the information to build and strengthen capability for the future. That's been the big lesson coming out of the whole lean -start-up' model for developing new ventures and it sits just as well inside established organizations who make use of agile approaches. Once again there are plenty of tools which capture this 'build-measure-learn - pivot' approach which builds on 'intelligent failure'...

Build dynamic capability. Innovation involves a moving target - constant changes in technologies, markets, competition, regulation and a host of other variables. Successful innovators build on the above principles but they also keep checking and updating their innovation management capabilities, learning new tricks and discarding old ones which no longer work. Innovation model innovation. Having a commitment to structured and constructively critical reflection is a key to this 'metacognition' approach - and there are plenty of helpful frameworks to enable and support that process. Check out the Innovation Fitness Test as an example...

One last seasonal thought. Innovation, like a puppy, is for life, not just for Christmas. It's something we need to think about all year round. So it might be worth recycling your Christmas innovation list into something you could use as a set of New Year resolutions.....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ten essentials for an innovator's Christmas list... Christmas, as my 6 year old never tires of reminding me, is coming. Never mind that technically it's a month away and forget the efforts I make, Scrooge-like, not to allow any trace of the season to cross our threshold until at least 1st December.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Innovation has become a defining ideology of our time. Be disruptive, move fast, break things! And everyone knows - right? - what innovation looks like. Just Google the word. You'll see lots of lightbulbs. Lightbulbs represent a sudden flash of inventiveness experienced by Thomas Edison or other mythic geniuses.

Innovation, as an infinite progression of advertisements, political campaigns and university incubators tell us, is Always A Very Good Thing. And, like all myths, this one holds some truth. Technological innovation has raised standards of living, made populations healthier, safer and smarter.

But, in large part because this isn't always true, it's essential to understand how science and technology advances actually happen and affect the world. Because of their importance, it's essential to reflect more critically on our collective myths about innovation.

First, forget all those images that a web search gives. The driving forces of innovation are not mythic isolated geniuses, almost always represented as men, be it Edison or Steve Jobs. That view is at best misleading, the history of technology and science's version of the Great (White) Man approach to history. For instance, Edison almost never worked alone. The more than 2 billion smartphones used around the world today function not because of Jobs's singular genius, not even because of the private sector, but because of research and development funded by an entrepreneurial state.

The history of technology is too important to be left to the technologists. Relying on PayPal's founders Elon Musk or Peter Thiel to tell us how that history goes is like turning to Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich to tell the political history of the 1990s. Books such as Walter Isaacson's The Innovators (2014) or Steven Johnson's How We Got to Now (2015) give us accounts of lone genius men toiling in industrial labs and Bay Area garages. This view of innovation - narrow and shallow - casts a long shadow, one that obscures the broad and deep currents that actually drive technological innovation and shape its impact on society.

Instead, consider the Otts. Somewhere in Kansas during the early years of the Great Depression, Bill Ott and his daughter Lizzie did something different with their car. By removing the rear tyre and adding a drive belt, they built a homemade car-powered washing machine. As an 'innovation thought leader' at Davos or TED might say, the Otts hacked the automobile and re-invented the washing machine. Stated simply - they innovated. So how come you haven't heard of the Otts? Because the Great White Man narrative of innovation ignores the critical role that anonymous, unrecognised people such as Bill and Lizzie Ott play in the incrementalism that is the real stuff of technological change. Most of the time, innovators don't move fast and break things.

Over the past two centuries, almost all professional scientists and engineers have worked not to cut down the old trees of technologies and knowledge and grow new ones, but to nurture and prune the existing ones. In corporate-based science and technology, disruption is very rare, continuity rules, and makes change and advance possible. At different times in history, such disruption was even discouraged. At the great industrial labs of the early 20th century, companies such as General Electric (GE) or AT&T didn't want their engineers and scientists to create excessive technological novelty - tens of millions of company dollars had been invested to build existing technological systems. Instead, research managers such as Willis R Whitney, head of GE's research, sought incremental improvements that would marginally advance the company's technologies and extend its intellectual property regime. Kenneth C Mees, who ran Kodak's research lab for decades, noted in 1920 that corporate research managers did not seek brilliant, eccentric (and unpredictable) geniuses. Provided that a researcher was well-trained, anyone could make a contribution to research 'even though he be entirely untouched by anything that might be considered the fire of genius'.

As we redefine our sense of what an innovator is and what talents she might possess, we start to see that the industrial revolutions of the past few centuries did not have one single global meaning. The economic reshuffling, social upheaval and environmental exploitation of modern industrial revolutions look very different from the perspective of a person living in Europe than from the perspective of people in Asia or Africa, for example. If we leave the shadow of the cult of the Great White Innovator theory of historical change, we can see farther, and deeper.

The global view shifts the focus from Manchester, Lowell, Detroit and Silicon Valley. It involves accepting that innovation and technological change are more than just making things. Ironically, this allows us to begin to glimpse a more familiar world where activities such as maintenance, repair, use and re-use, recycling, obsolescence and disappearance dominate. A much more global picture, one that includes people whose lives and contributions the Great White Innovator narrative marginalised, comes into view. The Lizzie Otts of the world can take their proper place as participants and contributors.

Every year, I teach a course on the history of technology. At the start of the each term, I ask my students at the University of California to finish this sentence: 'Technology is...?'

The responses are predictable. To most undergraduates, technology means the machines and devices around them - cars, laptops, smart phones and, yes, lightbulbs. At the end of term, I ask them the question again. If I'm lucky and have taught a good course, my students will have come to understand that technology is more than just things. It's more complex and richer than just the machines around them. It includes things we don't typically think of as things, such as patents, regulations, professional accreditations and, of course, the institutions that make these things.

Take one example - technical standards. When you go to the hardware store and buy a screw to replace one that's broken, you probably feel pretty confident that when the label says a '3/8 metal screw with 32 threads per inch', that's what you're getting. That's because American and European bureaucrats and engineers worked for decades to establish standards. Without these, interchangeable parts and global trade would have been practically impossible. Largely ignored, often invisible, standards created stability in technological systems. Whether it's screws or shipping containers, standards transformed the novel into the mundane, and made the local into the global.

Making standards wasn't about making new material objects exactly. Establishing standards meant making consensus via some sort of political process. For screw threads - a mundane, possibly quite boring example - this required a series of national and international meetings, and input from professional engineering societies (itself somewhat of an 'innovation' as engineers in the US and overseas began to organise themselves politically). The goal wasn't disruption and moving fast but rather reaching agreement and creating technological stability. This political engineering sometimes meant overcoming complaints that the standards promoted by large companies such as AT&T stifled innovation and further centralised its corporate power. It took the action of national organisations to override resistance. In 1924, the president of the American Standards Association argued that standards were 'the liberator' that relegated problems that had already been solved to the realm of the routine.

As political artefacts, standards embody certain ideologies. For the internet, it is an aspiration towards openness - open systems, open access, open source. In the US, this ideology has deep historical roots. Some ideas inherent in this openness can be traced from the civil liberties driving resistance towards England's Stamp Act in the mid-18th century to 20th-century ideals of open societies as alternatives to fascist and communist regimes. The philosopher Langdon Winner argued in 1980 that artefacts have politics, beliefs and assumptions about the world and society that are embedded and written into their very fabric.

As a result, technical standards - the very 'things' that allow my laptop and your iPhone to seamlessly (more or less) connect to networks as we move about the planet - requires the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), as well as recognition and cooperation from state agencies such as the US Federal Communications Commission or the International Telecommunication Union. Techno-libertarians might claim 'I made it' but the reality is that, without international standards, whatever they made wouldn't work very well.

Efficiency, therefore, is not some timeless universal value but something grounded deeply in particular historical circumstances

Core ideas and beliefs are additional 'things' that underpin our technological world. Central among these is a pervasive ideology - the quest for efficiency - that runs throughout past and present industrial revolutions. The quest for greater efficiency and rational operations flowed from the automatic flour mill that Oliver Evans patented in 1790 to the stopwatch-obsessed scientific managers who applied their techniques to the management of factory and home. The ideal of Frederick Winslow Taylor's quest for a 'one best way' continued into 1960s-era modernisation plans in the world's poor regions. Capitalist and communist systems alike embraced it, competing to outdo one another in productivity and efficiency. This same ideal burns bright in today's descriptions of a forthcoming 'Fourth Industrial Revolution', where the cyber and physical worlds are linked.

At the beginning of Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness (1902), Marlow holds forth on what distinguishes the British empire from its predecessors or rival imperialists. 'What saves us is efficiency,' he claims, 'the devotion to efficiency.' Conrad wrote his book when machines were the measure of a culture. Efficiency enabled the civilised to control the savage. A beacon for industrial revolutions, a devotion to efficiency illuminated the path from the waterwheel to social control and, in Britain's case, to an unprecedented global empire.

Efficiency, therefore, is not some timeless universal value but something grounded deeply in particular historical circumstances. At various times, efficiency was a way of quantifying machine performance - think: steam engines - and an accounting principle coupled to the new applied sciences of mechanics and thermodynamics. It was also about conservation and stability. By the early 20th century - the apogee of Taylorism - experts argued that increases in efficiency would realise the full potential of individuals and industries. Dynamism and conservatism worked together in the pursuit of ever-greater efficiency.

But a broad look at the history of technology plainly shows that other values often take precedence over efficiency, even in the modern era. It would, for example, offer several advantages in efficiency if, instead of every apartment or home having its own kitchen, multiple families shared a communal kitchen, and indeed in some parts of the world they do. But in the prevalent ideology of domesticity, every family or even single person must have their own kitchen, and so it is.

Nor, despite what Silicon Valley-based techno-libertarians might argue, does technological change automatically translate to increased efficiency. Sometimes, efficiency - like the lone eccentric innovator - is not wanted. In the 1960s, for instance, the US military encouraged metal-working firms, via its contracting process, to adopt expensive numerically controlled machine tools. The lavish funding the Department of Defense devoted to promoting the technology didn't automatically yield clear economic advantages. However, the new machines - ones that smaller firms were hard-pressed to adopt - increased centralisation of the metalworking industry and, arguably, diminished economic competition. Meanwhile, on the shop floor, the new manufacturing innovations gave supervisors greater oversight over production. At one large manufacturing company, numerical control was referred to as a 'management system', not a new tool for cutting metal. Imperatives besides efficiency drove technological change.

The history of technological change is full of examples of roads not taken. There are many examples of seemingly illogical choices made by firms and individuals. This shouldn't surprise us - technological change has always been a deep and multilayered process, one that unfolds in fits and starts and unevenly in time and space. It's not like the 'just so stories' of pop history and Silicon Valley public relations departments.

Although technology is most assuredly not just things, there's no denying its fundamental materiality. The physical reality of technologies settles over time, like sediment. Over time, technologies, like mountains or old cities, form layers that a geologist might conjure and a historian can try to understand. Technologies stack. Look at this painting:

Here, liberty glides forward across the North American continent. Settlers follow in her wake. Natives and nature scatter before her. She holds a telegraph cable and unspools it alongside the tracks of an advancing railway. On one hand, this is a portrait of American manifest destiny. Seen another way, it's a vivid example of how interdependent this era's transportation and communication systems were. The pattern isn't unique to the US. From 19th-century steamship routes and submarine telegraph cables to today's data communication systems - it's the same paths being traced as they layer on top of one another.

The technological world isn't flat: it is lumpy and bumpy, with old and new technologies accumulating on top of and beside each other

As the historian of computing Nathan Ensmenger puts it, geography shapes technology and vice versa. In the early 20th century, the Southern Pacific was one of the largest railroad companies in the US. By 1930, the company and its subsidiaries operated more than 13,000 miles of track. In the 1970s, a unit of Southern Pacific maintained a series of microwave communication towers along its railway lines. Microwave communications gave way to a network of fibre-optic cables laid along railway tracks. Around 1978, the Southern Pacific Communications Company began providing a long-distance phone service. When this split from the larger railroad company, the firm needed a new name. The choice was Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications. With its original infrastructure built on 19th-century railroad lines, SPRINT got to be one of the largest wireless service providers in the US by incremental change and layers built on top of layers.

As they layer and stack, technologies persist over time. For instance, 19th-century Japan was a world where steam and sail, railroads and rickshaws all shared common space. Industrial revolutions were distributed unequally in place and time. In the Second World War, the most common transport for the German army wasn't tanks and other motorised vehicles but horses. The technological world wasn't flat. This is the world, still, today. It is lumpy and bumpy, with old and new technologies accumulating on top of and beside each other.

Our prevailing focus on the shock of the technological new often obscures or distorts how we see the old and the preexisting. It's common to hear how the 19th-century telegraph was the equivalent of today's internet. In fact, there's a bestseller about it, The Victorian Internet (1998) by Tom Standage. Except this isn't true. Sending telegrams 100 years ago was too expensive for most people. For decades, the telegraph was a pricey, elite technology. However, what was innovative for the majority of people c1900 was cheap postage. So, during the heyday of the so-called Victorian internet, transoceanic postal systems made communication cheap, reliable and fast. The flow of information grew significantly more accessible and democratic. Although hard to imagine today, bureaucrats and business leaders alike spoke about cheap postage in laudatory terms that resemble what we hear for many emerging technologies today. By not seeing these older technologies in the past, we stand in danger of ignoring the value and potential of technologies that exist now in favour of those about to be. We get, for instance, breathless stories about Musk's Hyperloop and neglect building public transport systems based on existing, proven technologies or even maintaining the ones we have.

Just as 'computer' is a synecdoche for 'technology', Silicon Valley has come to reflect a certain monoculture of thought and expression about technology

If we maintain a narrow and shallow view of innovation, notions of making (new) stuff too easily predominate. In the 1880s, the insurance executive-turned-entrepreneur George Eastman and his colleagues invented new types of photographic film. This film was easier to use and develop but, still, sales were stagnant. Then Eastman had the idea of going for the untapped market of people who wanted to try photography but found it intimidating. In 1888, Eastman's company introduced the Kodak camera with the slogan: 'You press the button, we do the rest.' For $25 - a large sum in 1890 - one could buy a camera preloaded with 100 exposures. When done, the amateur photographer simply sent the camera to Eastman Kodak where the film was removed and processed, while the developed pictures, along with the camera re-loaded with fresh film, were sent back. More than inventing a new camera, Eastman's company invented a new community of users - amateur photographers. And, of course, Eastman's entrepreneurial initiative would have been impossible without the existence of a robust government-created postal network. His system stacked on top of an existing one just as much of today's 'disruptive innovation' relies on the internet.

Today, this same narrowness persists in popular perceptions of what a 'technology company' is. As Ian Bogost recently noted in The Atlantic, the 'technology' in the tech sector is typically restricted to computer-related companies such as Apple and Alphabet while the likes of GE, Ford or Chevron are overlooked. This is absurd. Surely Boeing - which makes things - is a 'tech company', as is Amazon, which delivers things using Boeing's things. Revising our sense of what technology is - or who does innovation - reshapes and improves our understanding of what a technology company is.

One cause of this confusion, I believe, stems from our decades-long fascination with Silicon Valley: once a romance, it now has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional relationship. Just as 'computer' is a synecdoche for 'technology', Silicon Valley has come to reflect a certain monoculture of thought and expression about technology. One must tread carefully here, of course. Just as the medieval Catholic Church or the Cold War Kremlin were not monolithic entities, there is not one single Silicon Valley. Rather, it's a complex assemblage of workers, managers, investors, engineers, et al. Unfortunately, some technology pundits ignore this diversity and reduce Silicon Valley to a caricature landscape of disruptive startups.

Ironically, many high-tech intellectuals present an extreme perspective of technology that rejects its 'thinginess'. A persistent flaw in today's digital boosterism is forgetting that all the stuff that makes the internet and the web work is actually made of something - silicon, plastic, rare-earth minerals mined in Bolivia or China. The Foxconn workers in Shenzhen who assemble iPhones and other high-tech devices certainly see it that way. Popular terminology - the 'Cloud' being the most pernicious - obscures the undeniable (but not all-encompassing) materiality of technology. So do maps of the internet that represent its complex physical infrastructure as a network of disembodied nodes and flowcharts.

Perhaps most simply, what you will almost never hear from the tech industry pundits is that innovation is not always good. Crack cocaine and the AK-47 were innovative products. ISIS and Los Zetas are innovative organisations. Historians have long shown that innovation doesn't even always create jobs. It sometimes destroys them. Automation and innovation, from the 1920s through the 1950s, displaced tens of thousands of workers. Recall the conflict between Spencer Tracy (a proponent of automation) and Katharine Hepburn (an anxious reference librarian) in the film Desk Set (1957).

And what of broader societal benefits that innovation brings? In Technological Medicine (2009), Stanley Joel Reiser makes a compelling case that, in the world of healthcare, innovation can bring gains and losses - and the winners are not always the patients. The innovation of the artificial respirator, for example, has saved countless lives. It has also brought in new ethical, legal and policy debates over, literally, the meaning of life and death. And there are real questions about the ethics of resource expenditure in medical innovation. Can spending large amounts pursuing innovative treatments or cures for exotic, rare diseases be ethical when the same monies could without question save millions of lives afflicted with simple health challenges?

continuity and incrementalism are a much more realistic representation of technological change

It's unrealistic to imagine that the international obsession with innovation will change any time soon. Even histories of nation-states are linked to narratives, rightly or wrongly, of political and technological innovation and progress. To be sure, technology and innovation have been central drivers of the US's economic prosperity, national security and social advancement. The very centrality of innovation, which one could argue has taken on the position of a national mantra, makes a better understanding of how it actually works, and its limitations, vital. Then we can see that continuity and incrementalism are a much more realistic representation of technological change.

At the same time, when we step out of the shadow of innovation, we get new insights about the nature of technological change. By taking this broader perspective, we start to see the complexity of that change in new ways. It's then we notice the persistent layering of older technologies. We appreciate the essential role of users and maintainers as well as traditional innovators such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and, yes, Bill and Lizzie Ott. We start to see the intangibles - the standards and ideologies that help to create and order technology systems, making them work at least most of the time. We start to see that technological change does not demand that we move fast and break things. Understanding the role that standards, ideologies, institutions - the non-thing aspects of technology - play, makes it possible to see how technological change actually happens, and who makes it happen. It makes it possible to understand the true topography of technology and the world today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Most of the time, innovators don't move fast and break things | Aeon Essays

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Innovation has become a defining ideology of our time. Be disruptive, move fast, break things! And everyone knows - right? - what innovation looks like. Just Google the word. You'll see lots of lightbulbs. Lightbulbs represent a sudden flash of inventiveness experienced by Thomas Edison or other mythic geniuses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Corporate Innovators Are Their Own Worst Enemy. How impactful is your innovation lab? A number of years ago, when I started as Head of Innovation for a large organisation, I met members of the innovation lab who were excited to tell me about all the innovation activity happening. But over the…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Customer Discovery for Product Managers | How To Use Surveys, Interviews, and Screeners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing product feasibility through prototypes with Matt Rothenberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Innovation is hard because solving problems people didn't know they had and building something no-one needs looks identical at first" Aaron Levie

As someone who has worked in the digital industry for over 20 years, one thing is apparent; innovation is hard. The problem is however that all companies, whether they be a startup or a large corporate with 100 years of history, need to be innovative to remain successful.

96% of CEO and CIOs who responded to the The Deloitte Innovation Survey 2015 ranked innovation as a top 5 strategic priority. It's important for the following reasons:

To anticipate new product opportunities

Malcolm Gladwell provides the analogy of David and Goliath when describing why many large established businesses suddenly find themselves losing market share to new disruptors. He claims that, like Goliath, these corporates have become "too big and slow and blurry-eyed to comprehend the way the tables had been turned." . Often businesses as they grow, become more inwardly focused and no longer see changes in the market or environment and are therefore unable to see the triggers that lead to a loss of advantage or the need to invest in significant change. More often new product opportunities are known, but businesses often fail to take full advantage of these for fear of impacting their current business model, failing to realise that the new product will eventually replace existing business models. Kodak is one company cited in this category, having failed to understand that digital photo sharing IS the new business model, it shouldn't have been viewed as a marketing tool to buy more film.

To grow the business by enhancing the existing offering

It is a fallacy to think that innovation is about generating new products. When a company places innovation at the center of doing things, it finds ways to innovate in every area of the business; product, business models, processes and functions. Think of how Ikea changed the process of furniture shopping, designed specifically for consumers looking to start a new home.

To uncover new markets or new environments

Did you know that the slinky, the coiled toy named one of the most influential toys of all time, was originally designed as a stabilising device on ships on rough seas? It's inventor Richard James only noticed it's opportunity as a toy when it was accidentally knocked off a shelf and started walking. Proactive analysis of new markets or environments as an innovation activity could remove the accidental nature of discovery.

To attract high quality employees

A survey conducted by the recruitment firm Robert Half suggests that nearly 9 out of 10 employees say a company's reputation for innovation "is an important consideration when evaluating potential employers."

While there are some creative visionaries out there (cue the typical reference to Steve Jobs), there are some things you can do to ensure that people in your business are more able to think creatively and innovatively.

In my experience people are typically able to generate a lot of ideas. However, to improve the likelihood of creating innovative ideas there are a few steps that should be applied:

1. Define a valid problem space - Give people some structure or more concrete data to use as a jumping off point for ideation.

2. Optimise for innovation - Brainstorming sessions are an expensive use of people's time and have been shown to result in fewer quality ideas when done incorrectly. So consider when to run a brainstorm, and how to optimise for success, plus consider other ways to encourage ongoing innovation.

3. Become a skilled critic - Establish methods to effectively critique and test the suite of ideas that have been generated to effectively separate the killer idea from the duds.

4. Keep everyone focused on the why - Even though you may start out with a clear vision and roadmap, it's very easy in the day-to-day to get lost in the detail and forget why we are doing these things.

5. Ensure that innovation is a full-team sport - make sure you have the best team in place and they have the right level of trust and ownership to make the magic happen.

I plan to tackle each of these five points separately, discussing what I mean by "defining a valid problem space" in this article, and discussing the other four topics in future articles.

"If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it," Albert Einstein

I believe that it's a lost opportunity to bring a group of experts into a brainstorm experience and hope that their background knowledge combined with a 3-hour dedicated time slot to think will be enough of a magical concoction to generate some new ideas.

Yes, such a session may generate a lot of ideas, but are they really the most innovative and more critically, are they the most impactful for the company? I am a big believer that only by adding some constraints to the thought process can people be forced to think more creatively.

Try this for yourself. Imagine you have been hired to participate in an ideation session to improve air travel for passengers. How many ideas can you come up with in a minute?

In that minute what were the processes you went through to achieve these ideas? Did you spend time thinking about the problems you experienced? How did you feel while ideating? Did you focus on any specific areas?

Now let's repeat this task, but this time we will give you a specific goal. The biggest issue people have relates to luggage. They don't want to place it in the hold, because of fears around speed of return and security while in transit. Yet there is only limited space in the cabin, so people jostle to get on the plane first to ensure their bags get on there. So the challenge is how can we rethink how all passengers can bring luggage on their air travel that is speedy, secure irrespective of whether they are the first or last passenger on the plane.

This is probably a much harder task with a lot fewer ideas generated, but if you are like me, it felt more challenging but more productive for two reasons:

1. It is more focused. The minute was spent dedicated to creative problem solving around the single topic, allowing time perhaps to deep dive, critique and build upon ideas.

2. It is hopefully a more beneficial investment of time, as I am focusing my efforts on ideating about something that optimally pre-work uncovered to be a critical problem with true business value in solving, it's not just a problem that may be specific to my experience alone.

Unfortunately, the majority of "innovation sessions" I have participated in during my career lack this pre-work and consequently the individuals involved in the session all have different perspectives on what is important to focus on. Consequently ideation becomes akin to shooting arrows without clear understanding of where the bullseye is. Clearly defining the problem upfront can ensure everyone has a shared understanding and any ideas generated are likely to be on target.

Following the principle of garbage in = garbage out, I believe that the first step to a successful innovative approach is to better understand the problems that your target audience is struggling with. By being certain that you have uncovered real problems, and then use them to ideate ideate against, you can have a higher confidence that the solutions you ideate will be successful.

Sounds easy, right? The issue is that it is way too easy to identify the wrong problems. Three common ways of mis-interpreting the problem space are as follows:
I have a product or technology, what desires can I align the product with to make it attractive to the target audience?
This is the typical marketing approach. How can we take something and flex it into an attractive package that speaks to the user's desires or needs so that they feel inspired to purchase or use it. The issue is when you have a solution looking for a problem to fix then you blinker your exploration of the problem space and may miss the larger more impactful problems that need to be solved. Or, if you take the failed example of Google Glass, which lacked the ability to solve any significant or current real world problem.
Users told me they needed "x"
Logically, the only way to uncover problems is to research with real consumers. There is the often cited quote:

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Henry Ford

often wrongly used to demerit the importance of consumer research. However, what it in fact highlights is what every professional consumer research practitioner knows; what people say and what they mean are two entirely different things. Therefore yes, gathering consumer insights is essential but even more critical is uncovering the real reason why they said it. In the cited scenario what the consumer is actually stating is that she wants to get from a to b faster. How she actually achieves this may not be important. Horses are mentioned, only because this is how it is done currently. Therefore, it is important to conduct user research but also critical to devote significant time, early in the research phase, even before research has been concluded, to synthesis the results and needle into what the real root of the problem is. One of the standard techniques for achieving this is applying the " five whys ", a technique established within Toyota during the evolution of its manufacturing methodologies. In this methodology the participant is instructed to ask "Why?" each time a reason is offered until there are no more whys and the root cause is established.
But this is just the way it has always been done!
This something both consumers and researchers fail at; the ability to challenge the norm and question why something that may have been done the same way for a long time, is in fact the right way. Sometimes this can be overcome by not just looking at coe=re consumers but by examining the needs of extreme users who may not easily overcome the current barriers. A great example of this is OXO; a company founded by Sam Farber who noticed his wife Betsey was having trouble comfortably holding her peeler due to arthritis. This lead to the "good grip" range of products, which in fact the larger audience of kitchen utensil buyers also found significantly easier to use.

The reason things have always been done this way could also be due to blindness around the way that the business has always done things. Therefore when conducting preparatory research into the problem areas to focus innovation on, the same amount of effort should be focused on critiquing the business processes and procedures for problems and assumed "ways of doing things".

One framework growing recently in recognition is " Jobs-to-be-done ". This was first established by Tony Ulwick in 1991 and is touted as an outcome-driven innovation approach. The framework's basic premise is that you need to understand not only the problems the customer has, but in order to create a product or service the consumer would want to use to solve that problem, you need to understand what the job is that people really need the product or service to support. From there you then need to derive what metrics of success customers use to evaluate whether the job is, in fact, done. These are what Ulwick and his team define as "customers' desired outcomes"

A case study often used to illustrate the jobs-to-be-done approach is the one presented eloquently by Clay Christensen on how the framework was used in collaboration with McDonalds to optimise the milkshake purchase experience.

The final preparation step prior to ideating is taking all the information gathered from primary research, the 5 whys, the jobs-to-be-done analysis and considering which of these insights will have the biggest business impact. The amount of time and seriousness of this effort will depend on whether you are attempting to derive a north star guiding principle for your new product or whether it is an enhancement to an existing product. In most scenarios however there will be a number of potential problems to be solved and the challenge then becomes which to really care about and bring forward for ideation.

Some questions to ask when evaluating the business merits of particular problems identified are as follows:

1. Size of the market segment impacted - is it something that many people may encounter, or is it something that only a few may experience but would be happy to pay a premium to solve? Is it a problem your current target audience encounters, or would you need to invest in a new market?

2. Frequency of the problem - how often does this occur? Is it frequently enough to again return ROI, or for you to quickly evaluate whether the product or service has been a success?

3. Who else is currently supporting this problem? - If this is a big enough problem and no-one else is trying to solve it then cracking a solution may make you a market leader. But conversely, is there a reason why no-one has solved it? It could be worth digging in to understand why. Or perhaps it has been solved in other industries, just not in yours, in which case you could take some learnings from what happened there as a jump off point.

Yes, and consequently a lot of companies skip it. Collecting customer insights, synthesising and identifying real problems and deciding which of these problems your company or team wants to own is an investment of time and money. But it is essential if you want to ensure that you built the right product, before building the product right.

Stefan Thomke and Donald Reinertsen conducted analysis of hundreds of digital product teams and published from it their " Six Myths of Product Development ". One of the issues they uncovered in their research was the fact that most development teams had full utilization rates with too many different projects underway at any one time to be effective. In the era of 'agile development' there has been, in my opinion, the growing tendency to just throw ideas out there and 'fail fast' as opposed to taking the time to clearly articulate the problems we want to solve, or the jobs-to-be done, and the outcomes that need to be achieved to ensure success.

By doing this pre-work then we are giving development teams their why; their purpose for building, a focus to ideate around, a tool to help prioritise and reduce the product queue.

In the next article we will look at how to generate innovative ideas. Is brainstorming the most effective method? What environments foster an innovative mindset? And if we do run a brainstorming workshop, how can we optimise for success?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovation in practice: defining a problem space and finding your why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Innovation is hard because solving problems people didn't know they had and building something no-one needs looks identical at first" Aaron Levie As someone who has worked in the digital industry for over 20 years, one thing is apparent; innovation is hard.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If someone comes to you with a problem, you start thinking of a solution. That's natural - everyone does it.

But as soon as you start thinking of a solution, you unconsciously begin shutting off possibilities for getting a deeper understanding of the problem and therefore of finding a truly breakthrough solution.

That's why it can often be more productive to avoid "solutions" thinking when a problem arises. It's better to stay in what we call the "problem space" for as long as possible. If that sounds strange, here's an example of what we mean.

A military organization came to us for help because people who were being observed by pilotless drones were using techniques such as smoke screens to deceive the analyzers of the drones' video and other data. The organization asked for assistance understanding the adversary's deception techniques. But by framing the request that way, the client had already moved from the problem space toward the solution space - the client was specifying the type of solution that was expected.

We encouraged the client to stay in the problem space, sometimes known as the "front end," in order to get a deeper understanding of the problem. The client soon came to see that analysts are deceived because there are limits on their ability to perceive. The real issue is understanding these limits.

To further explore that issue, we held an off-site at which we brought in people (outside the military) who are experts at confusing people, and others who are experts at making sense of ambiguous information. The first group included an illusionist and a theatrical set designer. The second included a forensics expert and a blind person who was practiced at perceiving whether her guide dog was leading her into safe or unsafe places.

The insights from this "divergent collaboration" of people from disparate walks of life gave the client ideas for new avenues of research. For example, could the analysts' information feeds include other types of data, such as auditory signals, or even smells?

What does all this mean about your own efforts to solve problems and execute on innovation?

First, force yourself to stay in the problem space as long as possible. Obviously, companies sometimes face real restrictions on the types of solutions they can consider. But often those limits are purely psychological, the result of narrow thinking about the nature of the problem.

So go deep. Look for underlying issues. What's the real obstacle you face? Once you've found it, go deeper still. What's the essence of that obstacle?

Then search for different viewpoints on the obstacle. Go far afield. Look for people who have faced that same essential challenge, and tap their insights. This can be easier than you think. It can be as simple as reading a relevant book or magazine that you've never looked at before. Or call an unfamiliar organization that includes people who face your challenge on a regular basis. Don't be afraid to bring outsiders into the discussion. We've found that people from wide-ranging backgrounds are often very willing to help - they find the experience fascinating.

Be thoughtful about the physical environment in which you explore the problem space. A lot of companies do offsites in hotel conference rooms, but those can be mind-numbing. Find something a little more conducive to exchanging ideas, a comfortable setting where you can get away from your day-to-day activities, form and re-form small groups, write on the walls. And plan the sessions carefully. When it comes to mixing and matching ideas, don't trust to luck. Structure conversations so that they're enriching rather than draining.

None of this is easy. Staying in the problem space, in particular, can be very difficult. Sometimes clients feel frustrated that we resist moving from the problem space to the solution space. Even some of the "divergent" collaborators we bring in for additional insights feel frustrated when they hear we're less interested in their proposed solutions to a client's problem than in how they look at the issues involved.

But staying in the problem space is worth the effort. If you rush to a solution, you run the risk of solving the wrong problem. The place to get the problem right is in the problem space, where you're more open to new ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When You're Innovating, Resist Looking for Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If someone comes to you with a problem, you start thinking of a solution. That's natural - everyone does it. But as soon as you start thinking of a solution, you unconsciously begin shutting off possibilities for getting a deeper understanding of the problem and therefore of finding a truly breakthrough solution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Innovation requires adding method to creativity, and innovation in the education sector particularly demands this. In our last piece we discussed the massive complexities of the sector including the fact that innovation takes place in 132,000 separate localities and that it necessitates changes in the interrelated parts that make up the core design of schools. In this piece we would like to showcase examples of education innovation from some of these localities-schools and school systems whose leaders are structuring their institutions in innovative ways, and are tackling the core design of school itself to better and more equitably serve the needs of students.

We present these examples within the context of a simple framework that can serve to add method for others embarking on innovation.
Method: An Innovation Conditions Framework
Through four years of supporting more than 100 district, charter, independent, and denominational school communities in 20+ states to design and launch innovative school models that aim to transform the experience of schooling, Transcend, a national non-profit, has learned that five critical conditions are necessary for innovation to grow in a sustainable manner:

1. Conviction in the importance of the work

2. Clarity on the vision

3. Capacity to implement the ideas

4. Coalition of broad and diverse stakeholders

5. Culture of honesty, trust, and learning

The Five Conditions in Action
Innovation begins with conviction in the need for extraordinary, equitable learning environments that redefine student success and reimagine the experiences intended to foster success. Our world is changing rapidly; schools need to be redesigned equitably and foundationally; leaders who take on the work of redesigning schools understand that they are the bearers of this urgency.

Stacy Kane, ED and Cofounder, Washington Leadership Academy, a charter school in Washington D.C., is visionary and steadfast in her conviction that allstudents should have a high school education that prepares them not only for college and career but also for a lucrative side hustle. She understands the complex contexts of her students include the need to be able to earn money during high school and post-secondary education, both for themselves and their families. Instead of locating those needs beyond the scope of school, she insists that school be designed to meet these needs. To that end she is building a school that brings Computer Science (CS) and the ability to create coding-related side gigs like web design to all WLA students, not just those in advanced classes. She has convinced her team of the crucial importance of both traditional academic approaches to CS and immediately applicable ones in ways that have required changes in the core design of school including mindsets, schedules, partnerships, crediting pathways, and more.

We have found that leaders who move innovation forward develop and spread clarity regarding the overarching goals of the work. To move from the conviction for change to a clear path forward requires the ability to tell the story of why and how to move forward. Leaders at the edge of education often grow this clarity by engaging in innovative processes that bring the world outside of schooling into the often closed institution that is the current design of school.

Adam Bunting, Principal of Champlain Valley Union High School wanted to lead his school "not through top-down 'push' energy but rather 'pull' energy" where staff, students, and the community embarked on change because they believed in it. He engaged a storyteller from The Moth to grow conviction into clarity by leading students, the leadership team, and the entire faculty of 120 through the process of developing their own stories for why change was needed. The community realized their current design needed to become much more personalized, in ways that enabled all students to thrive and Internalize their uniqueness. The current design of school that reduced learning to a set of letters and numbers (class grades, GPAs) could not accommodate all this personalized storytelling so the school moved to a competency-based assessment system that may culminate in a new interface between high school and college; the school is collaborating with the Mastery Transcript Consortium to pilot a new mastery-based transcript without GPAs that enables students to tell their unique story to colleges and employers.

Once conviction and clarity are strong, successful leaders focus intently on capacity. They are driven to find thepersonnel, funding, time, and training required to successfully design and implement a transformative school design.

Cynthia Robinson-Rivers, Principal of Van Ness Elementary School in the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), is building a school where children, families, and educators come together to develop a generation of confident, curious, and compassionate members of society. At the center of this vision is the notion of school as a place that addresses the whole child, not just the academic being. It entails attending to the mental health and wellbeing of children, as defined by neuroscience and clinical best practices, few of which are part of the training of teachers. Cynthia regularly and consistently engages her staff in the learning science around trauma informed practices / wellbeing. She prioritizes this as much as academics, knowing that - if Van Ness wants real learning to happen - this is an essential foundation. Doing so requires her to make major shifts in the core design of school to enable this continuous learning: by creating a comprehensive school plan, redesigning professional development, redesigning schedules, curriculum, and budgets.

The complex work of school transformation requires a coalition -the support of a committed group of stakeholders, including students, parents, educators, community members, government, and industry, who are helping the work become a sustained success. Without a coalition, innovative leaders may be able to launch the work but it is rarely sustained. This is especially crucial in a sector where leadership turnover is a concern and where resources are scarce.

Under Newark Schools Superintendent Roger Leon, students are being enrolled in a coding academy to create a more equitable access to the jobs of the future. The Panasonic Foundation and the superintendent recognized the urgency of this need, and rather than reinvent the wheel, partnered with the Hispanic Heritage Foundation to launch Coding as a Second Language (CSL), a program established first in 2013 that had also been implemented successfully in Calexico, CA; Atlanta, Georgia; and Reno, NV. By the end of this year over a hundred middle and high school students will be exposed to STEM education and tech professionals who will serve as mentors to them. This coalition of a school district, industry, foundations, and community professionals grows the capacity of the district to undertake this important and complex work, and thereby impact future outcomes for students. "This collaborative partnership helps us address one of the most critical issues minority students are facing today," said Alejandra Ceja, Executive Director of the Panasonic Foundation.

Finally, our work has shown us that leaders of innovation attend closely to culture: intentionally building values, norms, and practices amongst adults and young people that enable new ideas to emerge, be tested and iterated on, and eventually codified and spread. They understand that this may entail growing the capacity for risk-taking and vulnerability.

Kim Taylor, Director of Pathways High, a regional charter school located in downtown Milwaukee, accompanied Pathways High board members when they pitched the school to the C suite of a local Fortune 500 company. The company leadership shared Pathways High's concern that too many students lack the skills necessary to perform the jobs they offered and that workplace and school cultures were misaligned. Pathways High had already developed IMPACT, a program that provides students with real world learning experiences both within and outside the classroom. However, after meeting with the C suite, Kim and her team recognized the need to extend the IMPACT program to include teachers so they could embrace a culture of innovation from a personal, lived experience. As most educators have very little contact with the current world of work beyond education, the Pathways High leadership team wanted the IMPACT program to enable both students and teachers to work in businesses to create bridges across the different cultural mindsets. Kim and her team began by sending Pathways High teachers a survey asking them to describe their passions, what they would do if they weren't teaching, and what they read in their free time. Using these interests inventories, they then connected their teaching staff and students with industry professionals whom they could shadow.

The examples above show how innovation is possible in the education sector. Innovative leaders often intentionally cultivate one or two of these critical conditions, and perhaps accidentally cultivate some of the others. What if they were to take on all five conditions intentionally?
This article was developed and researched in collaboration with Sujata Bhatt, Senior Fellow,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Profiles In Innovation: Leading At The Edge Of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this piece we showcase examples of education innovation including schools and school systems whose leaders are structuring their institutions in innovative ways, and are tackling the core design of school itself to better and more equitably serve the needs of students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
References

1. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, "Enterprising States 2015: States Innovate" (Washington, DC: 2015).

2. D. Smith and C. Mindrum, "How to Capture the Essence of Innovation," Accenture Outlook Journal 1 (January 2008): 1-10.

3. T. Davila, M. Epstein, and R. Shelton, "Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit From It" (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press, 2012).

4. A.G. Lafley and R. Charan, "The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth With Innovation" (New York: Crown Business, 2008).

5. J. Hagedoorn and N. Wang, "Is There Complementarity or Substitutability Between Internal and External R&D Strategies?" Research Policy 41, no. 6 (July 2012): 1072-1083; and A. Kandybin, "Which Innovation Efforts Will Pay?" MIT Sloan Management Review 51, no. 1 (fall 2009): 53.

6. R. Cross, P. Gray, S. Cunningham, M. Showers, and R.J. Thomas, "The Collaborative Organization: How to Make Employee Networks Really Work," MIT Sloan Management Review 52, no. 1 (fall 2010): 83-90; M.E. Johnson-Cramer, S. Parise, and R. Cross, "Managing Change Through Networks and Values," California Management Review 49, no. 3 (spring 2007): 85-109; and R. Cross, C. Ernst, D. Assimakopoulos, and D. Ranta, "Investing in Boundary-Spanning Collaboration to Drive Efficiency and Innovation," Organizational Dynamics 44, no. 3 (July-September 2015): 204-216.

7. M.M. Bekier, A.J. Bogardus, and T. Oldham, "Why Mergers Fail," McKinsey Quarterly (autumn 2001): 6-9; M.E. Graebner, K.M. Eisenhardt, and P.T. Roundy, "Success and Failure in Technology Acquisitions: Lessons for Buyers and Sellers," Academy of Management Perspectives 24, no. 3 (August 2010): 73-92; and D.R. King, D.R. Dalton, C.M. Daily, and J.G. Covin, "Meta-Analyses of Post-Acquisition Performance: Indications of Unidentified Moderators," Strategic Management Journal 25, no. 2 (February 2004): 187-200.

8. R. Cross, R. Rebele, and A. Grant, "Collaborative Overload," Harvard Business Review 94, no. 1-2 (January-February 2016): 74-79; and R. Cross and P. Gray, "Where Has the Time Gone?" California Management Review 56, no. 1 (fall 2013): 50-66.

9. G. Oster, "Characteristics of Emergent Innovation," Journal of Management Development 29, no. 6 (2010): 565-574.

10. M. Uhl-Bien and M. Arena, "Complexity Leadership: Enabling People and Organizations for Adaptability," Organizational Dynamics 46, no. 1 (January-March 2017): 9-20.

11. A. Hargadon, "How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate" (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2003); A. Hargadon and R.I. Sutton, "Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm," Administrative Science Quarterly 42, no. 4 (December 1997): 716-749; and J. Singh and L. Fleming, "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?" Management Science 56, no. 1 (January 2010): 41-56.

12. M. de Jong, N. Marston, and E. Roth, "The Eight Essentials of Innovation," McKinsey Quarterly, April 2015, www.mckinsey.com.

13. Uhl-Bien and Arena, "Complexity Leadership"; and M. Uhl-Bien and R. Marion, "Complexity Leadership in Bureaucratic Forms of Organizing: A Meso Model," Leadership Quarterly 20, no. 4 (August 2009): 631-650.

14. L. Huston and N. Sakkab, "Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gamble's New Model for Innovation," Harvard Business Review 84, no. 3 (March 2006): 58-66.

15. L. Fleming, S. Mingo, and D. Chen, "Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success," Administrative Science Quarterly 52, no. 3 (September 2007): 443-475.

16. R. Reagans and B. McEvily, "Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range," Administrative Science Quarterly 48, no. 2 (June 2003): 240-267.

17. T.M. Amabile, S.G. Barsade, J.S. Mueller, and B.M. Staw, "Affect and Creativity at Work," Administrative Science Quarterly 50, no. 3 (September 2005): 367-403.

18. E. Catmull, "How Pixar Fosters Collaborative Creativity," Harvard Business Review 86, no. 9 (September 2008): 63-72.

19. L. Fleming, "Finding the Organizational Sources of Technological Breakthroughs: The Story of Hewlett-Packard's Thermal Ink-Jet," Industrial and Corporate Change 11, no. 5 (November 2002): 1059-1084.

20. R. Cross, W. Baker, and A. Parker, "What Creates Energy in Organizations?" MIT Sloan Management Review 44, no. 4 (summer 2003): 51-57.

21. R.S. Burt, "Structural Holes and Good Ideas," American Journal of Sociology 110, no. 2 (September 2004): 349-399.

22. J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, "Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change: Strong Ties and Affective Cooptation," Management Science 59, no. 4 (April 2013): 819-836.

23. R. Cross, J. Linder, and A. Parker, "Charged Up: Managing the Energy That Drives Innovation," Management Quarterly 48, no. 2 (summer 2007): 14-29.

24. Cross, Baker, and Parker, "What Creates Energy in Organizations?"

25. J. Rao, "W.L. Gore: Culture of Innovation," Babson College case no. BAB698 (Babson Park, Massachusetts: Babson College, 2012).

26. D.Z. Levin and R. Cross, "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer," Management Science 50, no. 11 (November 2004): 1477-1490.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Catalyze Innovation in Your Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
References 1. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, "Enterprising States 2015: States Innovate" (Washington, DC: 2015). 2. D. Smith and C. Mindrum, "How to Capture the Essence of Innovation," Accenture Outlook Journal 1 (January 2008): 1-10. 3. T. Davila, M. Epstein, and R.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ever since governments have first existed, they have innovated.

Often this has been in small ways, with minor changes to how they operate or tinkering with services and practices. Other times it has been in big ways, involving radical departures from the past, and the introduction of completely new ways of approaching the work of the state. (Sometimes this innovation has been for the good, sometimes it has been for the bad, and often it has been a mixed bag.)

In more recent times, government have had to continually adapt to changing circumstances, priorities and needs. Sometimes this adaptation has involved innovative responses, and sometimes it has relied on already understood interventions. As we can see from the OPSI Case Study Platform, government continues to innovate today, in many varied ways.

Why, then, do we need any added attention towards public sector innovation? If it has already been happening, and continues to happen, why worry about it? Why do we at OPSI think that innovation in government needs more work to understand it, more effort to encourage it, and more investment in getting better at it? This is something that has come up as we think through the draft Declaration on Public Sector Innovation, open for public consultation until 22 February, which makes the case for greater attention and effort by governments on innovation.

To some, the answer is self-explanatory. They think that of course government needs to be innovating, and it is self-evident that current levels of innovation are not enough. To such people, innovation is not seen as an end in and of itself, but a necessary ongoing activity in order for government just to keep up with a changing world, let alone to get in front of the change and help shape it.

Innovation is not the be all and end all

Yet, to many others, this acceptance is not the case. They might think that:

The need for innovation is no greater now than it has been previously. Government has never been easy, and the challenges of today can be overstated in comparison to the big issues that governments have already dealt with (wars, epidemics, social changes)

Government does not need to keep up with the rate of external change, that it can intervene when or as needed once it has seen how things have played out

That government is already changing things, and it needs to be careful to not change things too fast, as part of the role of the state is to maintain stability and to protect the vulnerable

Innovation already occurs when, and as, needed and there is a risk of pursuing innovation for its own sake, rather than pursuing outcomes that may or may not require innovative approaches. Governments cannot afford to be distracted by fads and focussing too much on whatever is currently 'shiny'.

All of these are fair points and worthy of discussion and debate. Innovation does come with costs and sometimes it can do more damage than good. Innovation is not, and should not, always be the answer, and nor is it appropriate at all times

Innovation as a core competency

Clearly though we at OPSI believe that innovation now needs to be a fundamental component of government. Innovation is not something that can be turned to only when other options have been exhausted; it needs to be an ongoing capability that informs deliberations. In our work on national public sector innovation systems we run through some of the reasons why this might be the case.

We advocate that innovation needs to move from being a reactive, ad hoc, opportunistic activity, one driven too often by individuals having to go above and beyond to drive change, to a reliable, consistent, deliberate and strategic resource that can be drawn on as and when needed.

Yet while all of the factors that we have identified are important, in this piece I would like to explore some more fundamental reasoning as to why innovation matters more now than even before.

A changing world equals a need for governments to change (and innovate)

Whether innovation is needed in government depends upon the degree to which the world is changing. A changing world suggests governments need to innovate, whereas a more static world is one where innovation is less likely to be needed or sought. The faster the rate of change, the greater the scope of change, or the bigger the volatility in the direction or nature of change, the more likely it is that governments have to ensure that innovation is a core competency. The modern world has been labelled one of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity), which has necessitated more sophisticated approaches.

To take this further, the greater the change, the more it is likely to involve previously unseen and unprecedented developments, and thus require novel (innovative) responses. Small changes are less likely to require significant innovation in response.

Is the world really changing faster than ever before?

Yet a question naturally arises: how can we be sure that change is, in fact, accelerating, or that we are experiencing an unprecedented magnitude of change? How can we be confident that innovation is required in government more now than before? Maybe governments will be able to manage with the capabilities they already have? After all, human history is a rich tapestry of upheaval, of wars, of revolutions both political and technological, and of social transformation. Who is to say that the change being experienced now is greater or more significant now that it has been in, say, the last 100 years?

Indeed, some, such as Gordon (2016), dispute the notion that current technological changes are as significant as those that preceded them. The argument runs that earlier technologies, such as the electrification or the internal combustion engine, had clear demonstrable benefits to productivity and living standards. In this perspective, the value of some modern technologies pales in comparison to what was achieved before.

However others would argue that technological change is following an underlying exponential shift (e.g. Kurzweil, 2005), where the major gains are sometimes not seen until the technology matures, and thus the significance of early developments will be underestimated or discounted. This counter argument suggests that seemingly slow steps in, say, artificial intelligence, will in time lead to dramatic and sudden transformations.

In short, it is easy to point to current political, environmental, economic and social challenges, but it is hard to quantify or compare these with any previous waves of disruption and adjustment.

This state of affairs is not necessarily helpful for proving that innovation is needed in government now more than ever before. Instead, it suggests that the magnitude and significance of change can only be ascertained and understood in retrospect (if at all). This has parallels with one of the essential features of innovation: being something that is unprecedented (in a particular context) any innovation is inherently unproven, and can only truly be assessed after the fact.

Arguing about the rate or nature of change is probably not helpful

If we accept that:

the case for significantly greater investment in, and attention to, innovation in government depends on the extent to which it is agreed or believed that the change occurring is unprecedented

the ability to assess whether change was indeed unprecedented will only be possible in retrospect

then we reach a bit of a stalemate. We cannot wait until the present has become the past to show that we require more innovation from government, as investments and decisions must be made now. Yet if, in retrospect, current change is regarded as insignificant, then disrupting the work of government by experimenting with how to do things differently may well have been detrimental and harmful, when existing interventions would have been sufficient.

This does not help us make a clear case for innovation in government.

Instead, I would like to suggest an alternative framing to the question of change. Rather than arguing over the rate of change, I think it more useful to look at the question of "potentiality" (the possibility of something happening or of someone doing something in the future).

Technology as a creator of options and potentiality

To take a different starting point than the rate or scale of change as the justification for why innovation is needed in government more now than ever before, let us instead look at technology. Technology is fundamentally about being able to do more things. Technology, whether it be the mastery of fire or the use of artificial intelligence to solve complex problems, is about being able to interact with and manipulate the world in more sophisticated and/or far-reaching ways. The addition of new technology allows for humans to do things that we were unable to do beforehand, or that we were unable to do as easily beforehand. More technology thus allows us to do more things more easily. Technology creates options.

Sometimes it will be the case that a new technology limits or constrains the options that were previously available under a previous technology or paradigm. For instance, machine guns and tanks made cavalry and its associated knowledge, skills and uses, fairly useless in most of the traditional circumstances. The advent of new technology required significant innovation in response, to adapt to the possibilities that were now on offer. Or to take another case, scanning and email rendered fax machines pretty much obsolete. However, in general, new technologies still contribute to the creation of more options than were available before their introduction. The emerging technologies of today - machine learning, 3D printing, biotechnology - generally allow greater understanding and manipulation of the world than we have ever potentially had before, despite their replacement of many other technologies and the associated infrastructure, skills and capabilities.

In addition, as technologies have become more mature, the access to and ability to engage with these new technologies becomes commodified. Much of human knowledge has therefore been democratised, and widespread consumer access to complex computing power and sophisticated tools has allowed governments, organisations, or even individuals to have access to options that once upon a time was only barely conceivable. Individuals can now potentially reach millions or even billions through social media. Any connected person now has potential global reach and impact. In short, as technology becomes more mature, and more widespread, more people have more options available to them.

In turn, more options - the ability to be able to do a wider range of potential things - create more possibilities. If a greater number of people can potentially do a greater range of things, there then exists a greater range of possible futures. More technology in the hands of more people creates more possible futures. Even if people do not take advantage of those possibilities, the existence of those possibilities creates a sense that everything is under potential question and could change significantly at any time.

If we accept that the technology available to us has increased, and that access to technology has also increased, then it follows that there is a greater range of possible scenarios that governments might be confronted with, many of which may require innovative responses or innovation in order to prepare for (or even to enable) these futures.

In a world with more potential futures than ever before, innovation matters

Governments faced with significant uncertainty need not only options for how to respond, but meaningfully different and distinct choices about how to respond. Democracy depends upon the ability to make meaningfully different choices.

Yet choices are only real if the options available are really understood, if there is some sense of the consequences or trade-offs involved with different options. If options are vague and under-developed, then they are not meaningful choices, but instead an invitation for guessing rather than selecting.

This is where the practice of public sector innovation matters: it is not merely about the creation of options, but also the ability to meaningfully understand how those options differ and what they might actually entail. In an uncertain world there are no guarantees, and things may work out very differently in practice, but this is where a sophisticated innovation capability matters. It is what provides the experience, the skills, and the judgement to navigate uncertain possibilities, and to flexibly adjust and pivot when needed. Without a sophisticated innovation capability, governments faced with a greater range of possible futures will be limited to being reactive to externally generated changes, being caught unprepared, or end up picking between different options with no confidence that the option taken will result in what is wanted.

In this context, innovation needs to be a core competency of government not only for functional reasons - i.e. the ability to achieve things - but also as a matter of democratic responsibility. If government views innovation as a secondary matter, then its ability to engage with, understand, and therefore effectively shape innovation and its wider societal effects, will be limited.

Summary

In short:

A changing world suggests that governments must also change

Some of that change will involve innovation

The more then that the world changes, the more that government must become sophisticated at innovation

However, our ability to assess the rate or nature of change going on is limited, and only able to be done in retrospect, if at all

What can be said with confidence is that as our technological capabilities become more sophisticated, humans have more options open to them than before

As technology becomes more accessible/ubiquitous, more people have more options

More options - the ability to do a wider range of things - creates more possibilities. Therefore, more technology in the hands of more people creates more possible futures

If governments want to meaningfully respond or prepare, and to have informed choices about how they do so, then they will need public sector innovation.

So what?

This is an attempt to think through and simplify some of the reasoning underpinning why innovation matters now more than ever for governments. We are giving this thought as we work with countries in understanding how to support national public sector innovation systems. The case for innovation is fundamental to building an innovation system; after all, if there is no acceptance of the need for innovation, then it is going to be tough to convince actors to work together on innovation.

It also matters as we seek to develop the OECD Declaration on Public Sector Innovation. While we, working with countries, have outlined some of the case for why innovation is needed, it's still a work in progress, and the draft can yet be improved, and is open for comment until February 22.

Let us know what you think

What do you think? Do you think the case for innovation in government is clear and understood already? If so, what makes it so? If not, does what we have outlined here help make that case?

Let us know in comments, by email, or on our LinkedIn group. You can also sign up to our newsletter if you would like to be kept up-to-date with our work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why innovation matters more now than ever before - Observatory of Public Sector Innovation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever since governments have first existed, they have innovated. Often this has been in small ways, with minor changes to how they operate or tinkering with services and practices. Other times it has been in big ways, involving radical departures from the past, and the introduction of completely new ways of approaching the work of the state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The start of innovation is described by Wikipedia as the messy getting started period of a new product development process. It is in the front end where the organization formulates a concept of the product or service to be developed and decides whether or not to invest resources in the further development of an idea [i]. The 'front end' is the informal start of innovation and defined as "fuzzy" by many due to its lack of process and structure. Prof. Dr. Cornelius Herstatt and Birgit Verworn state on this: "Within the innovation process, we believe, the early phases ("fuzzy front end") to have the highest impact on the whole process and the result, since it will influence the design and total costs of the innovation extremely. However, the "Fuzzy Front End" is unfortunately the least well-structured part of the innovation process, both in theory and in practice." [ii]
15 obstacles are hindering innovation at its start
As speaker on innovation I have been traveling around the world meeting innovators, managers and CEOs in different cultures: from Canada to Cape Town; and from Turkey to Tokyo. I start my workshops asking them the direct question, "What are your main struggles at the start of innovation?" From all these workshops I identified fifteen obstacles which may block you during the fuzzy front end along the path towards a successful new business case:
Innovation starts with an idea, a technology, a problem or a business issue
Now we nailed all the problems at the fuzzy front end, let's work on the solution to unfuzzy it. The way innovation starts is diverse. There are four common patterns how you start innovation.

1. You start innovation with a idea, like Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia of AIRBNB. When a major design conference came to town in 2007, they saw an opportunity to earn some extra cash by renting out their spare floor space. In no time they had put together a website advertising lodging for overnight guests which they called "Airbed and Breakfast".

2. You start innovation triggered by technology, like Google X research lab, which explores new technologies beyond Google's core business, with for example their Google Glass experiment.

3. You start innovation to solve a problem, like two students in Sweden, Anna Haupt and Terese Alstin. The prospect of being forced by law to wear a bicycle helmet caused them great concern, as they wouldn't "be caught dead wearing a polystyrene helmet." They started developing a bicycle helmet that people would be happy to wear.

4. You start innovation because your business needs to innovate, like toy-producer LEGO when in 1998 they generated their first loss in the company's history. In response to this crisis, the company announced the lay-offs of 1,000 employees and put innovation on their agenda.

The front end of innovation ends with a well-founded new business case
I learned that to convince the management of an organization or (in)formal investors to let your innovative idea enter the formal development process and give you the resources needed, you must bring to the table a well-founded convincing new business case. Now the crucial word in the last sentence is 'convincing'. This means you really must know your stuff. In the boardroom your idea will be evaluated from at least four perspectives:

The customer: will they buy it?

The technology: can we deliver it?

The business model: will it pay off?

The risk: What if it's a failure? What if it's huge success?

The board will demand tangible proof before making a decision. That makes the front end of innovation so challenging and intensive. In practice it will take at least ten activities to take you to this desired outcome in a structured way.
10 essential activities to unfuzzy your front end

1. Ideate: Generating and choosing original relevant ideas for a product, service, process or experience.

2. Focus: Defining your innovation center-of-interest including all the boundary conditions.

3. Check Fit: Checking if your idea, technology, customer issue or business challenge fits your personal and corporate priorities.

4. Create Conditions: Organizing the right moment, the right team, the right pace and the right funding for your innovation initiative.

5. Discover: Discovering trends, markets, technologies and customer insights.

6. Create Business Model: Creating a viable business model.

7. Select Technology: Identifying and selecting the right technology to deliver your new product, service, process or experience.

8. Check Freedom to Operate: Checking if you do not infringe intellectual property rights of others.

9. Experiment: Carrying out a systematic research or test which validates the adoption and attractiveness of your new product, service, process or experience.

10. Create New Business Case: Creating a well-founded convincing business case for your new product, service, process or experience.

Pick the Right Route through the maze
In 'The Innovation Maze', you find both the 15 obstacles and the 10 activities essential for the start of innovation. The maze has four entry points.

1. Idea - A rough business idea or a great business opportunity

2. Technology - A new technology that sparks innovation

3. Customer problem - A problem or a pain point

4. Business challenge - An external or internal change that jeopardizes the future of the business

Each of the four innovation routes contains all ten activities. The great news is that whether you start with an idea, a technology, a customer issue or a business challenge you can use the same activities and the same tools. The order in which the ten activities are undertaken depends on how you start innovation. Be aware that doing things in the right order has a huge impact on the effectiveness.

I wish you lots of success starting innovation successfully.
Ps. You can download a free pdf of all the 4 four routes. When you like the 'Innovation Maze', check out Gijs van Wulfen's new book at: Amazon UK or Amazon US.
Image credit: ideate.co.za

Wait! Before you go.

Choose how you want the latest innovation content delivered to you:

Gijs van Wulfen helps organizations to structure the chaotic start of innovation as author, speaker and facilitator. He is the founder of the FORTH innovation method and author of the innovation bestseller The Innovation Expedition. He was chosen by LinkedIn as one of their first 150 Influencers. Follow Gijs @gijsvanwulfen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Model with Four Routes to Start Innovation - Disruptor League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The start of innovation is described by Wikipedia as the messy getting started period of a new product development process. It is in the front end where the organization formulates a concept of the product or service to be developed and decides whether or not to invest resources in the further development of an idea [i].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A couple of examples: On the left, a 'Triskelion', an ancient Celtic symbol often interpreted to represent life-death-rebirth or past-present-future, and on the right , the Hindu 'Trimurti' of the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, representing a balance of creation, preservation and destruction respectively.

Not wanting to be left out of the 'threes' party, the field of business and service innovation has the 'Three Lenses', a diagram popularised by design firm IDEO that makes a seductively simple promise: develop a solution that balances the needs of the organisation with those of the customer and what can feasibly be delivered, and you'll have yourself a winner. However, this article will argue that this simplistic framework often hinders more than it helps, serving to effectively discourage consideration of the full range of risks and opportunities, embed short-term thinking and ultimately jeopardise the success of projects.

The Three Lenses of Innovation: balancing these three factors will supposedly allow us to hit the 'sweet spot' in the middle.

The Power of Pictures
In her book Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth relates a time when, dispirited by the seemingly unswervable commitment of many in her discipline to GDP growth as the measure of economic success, she came to a realisation: the best way to challenge the supremacy of this firmly-entrenched metric was to create an alternative visualisation to the simple growth curve graph that underpinned it. The result was the ' Doughnut'- a diagram that tries to take a holistic view of humanity's fundamental needs in the context of the planet's ecological boundaries, and so prompts us to question the very goals that the economy serves. This diagram has by all accounts had a great impact, helping not just to open up debate but also providing a vision of an inclusive and sustainable future around which many have rallied. Yet as the author herself has it, we shouldn't be surprised at the power that a 'picture' such as this has to inform our thinking: 'what we draw determines what we can and cannot see, what we notice and what we ignore, and so shapes all that follows.'

On the left, a traditional visualisation of GDP growing exponentially over time. On the right, Kate Raworth's 'Doughnut', a 21st century 'compass'.

'The Three Lenses'
Raworth's writings got me thinking about the visualisations commonly utilised in my own field, and how they might determine what we 'can and cannot see'. No doubt the most influential is the 'Three Lenses of Innovation' (otherwise known as the Three Lenses of Human-Centred Design) popularised by design consultancy IDEO, which as well as being used directly, is also effectively the underpinning of the Business Model Canvas. The premise is pretty simple: if we can develop a solution that balances meeting the organisation's goals (viability), technological and operational possibilities (feasibility) and the customer or user's needs (desirability), then we'll occupy that 'sweet spot' of innovation in the centre and have ourselves a success. We'll be able to deliver it, customers will buy it, and the business will make money from it. Hooray.
Ignoring other 'Lenses' means we have blind spots
However, the problems come in that no real-world project is this simple. While viability, desirability and feasibility are clearly fundamental to the success of any new business or service, in reality there are other factors that while initially appearing more peripheral, may develop over time into fundamental challenges. For example, customers or end users are usually not the only human beings involved or impacted: in nearly all cases, the providing organisation will have employees, and their experiences will significantly influence both the delivery of the service and public perceptions of it. There may also be environmental consequences, which could manifest locally (such as noise or air pollution) or globally (such as greenhouse gas emissions), and these factors may too impact public opinion. Then there is the political context, in this case potentially influenced by wider societal perceptions, which may ultimately result in legislation and regulation that fundamentally impacts the viability of the service.

The standard 'Three Lenses' in the centre, with some other potential (equally vital?) lenses that often go ignored situated around them.

Uber & Deliveroo highlight the issues
The case of Uber is perhaps a useful example to highlight this point. Judged in terms of the 'Three Lenses' alone, Uber's model may be (and frequently has been) declared a great success, despite the long wait for profitability. Certainly, from the user's perspective, being able to hail a ride from a smart phone at all times of day or night seems mightily convenient. However, as the company has grown and its services become more widespread, other factors, outside of the 'three lenses', have come into play: increased road traffic and air pollution in city centres such as London have led to growing societal concern and media scrutiny and the question of drivers' rights and pay have led to a court battle in the UK, culminating with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that Uber drivers be classed as workers rather than as self-employed. The implications of this are profound. As Uber put it when they filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2019, classifying drivers in this way 'would require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition'. UK-based takeaway food delivery service Deliveroo, recently valued at £8.8 billion, has had to admit that making riders employees "could affect our ability to continue operating". While the precise way these issues panned out was not necessarily knowable from the start, they were perhaps very predictable. Looking beyond the Three lenses would certainly have better prepared these organisations for managing these risks.

Uber and Deliveroo are two business that have recently seen the impact on their core business model from factors outside of the traditional 'Three Lenses'.

Seizing opportunities as well as having visibility of risks
Additionally, organisations that fail to consider the 'sustainability' of their services over the medium and longer term may also be missing out on significant opportunities. Several major studies have shown that far from being a burden and a dent on profits, a focus on sustainability brings long-term prosperity and benefits ranging from better morale and retention of employees through to improved sales and marketing, when embedded at the core of an organisation's strategies. As Andrew Winton has succinctly described it, 'Companies operating more sustainably slash costs, manage risks better, drive innovation, and build brand value. They're more profitable.'
The takeaway
Designers often pride themselves on an ability to take a step back, to question the assumptions inherent in project briefs and then to do the research needed to ensure that the 'right' problem is being solved, before solutions are considered. However, if we are only considering desirability, viability and feasibility when developing a service, we are in essence turning a blind eye to the full range of risks and opportunities, and cannot be confident that our solutions are really in that 'innovation sweet spot'. More holistic, thorough approaches are required, and for that, we need different innovation frameworks to guide us.

To that end, I set out to scour the internet to find examples of different frameworks that are being developed to this very end. These I will review and playback in my next article!
Further Reading:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Expanding the '3 Lenses': beyond viability, feasibility & desirability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not wanting to be left out of the 'threes' party, the field of business and service innovation has the 'Three Lenses', a diagram popularised by design firm IDEO that makes a seductively simple promise: develop a solution that balances the needs of the organisation with those of the customer and what can feasibly be delivered, and you'll have yourself a winner.