"Don't worry about other people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
This quote, by pioneering IBM engineer Howard Aiken, describes a common scenario: Someone comes up with a bright new idea that has potential to open up new opportunities and perhaps even transform a category, but soon after the naysayers weigh in. They poke holes in it, compare it to past failures, find the reasons why it won't work, or miss its potential altogether. While healthy up to a point, such questioning can lead to an environment in which innovation has a hard time thriving.
Innovation continues to be a key imperative for companies as they face ever more disruptive competition and customers who have increasingly high expectations about the user experiences of technology products. But a common problem is "innovation erosion"—the gradual reduction in the level of innovation of a product as it makes it way through the development cycle. A recent McKinsey study showed this to be a widespread issue, with 61 percent of 2,000 global executives saying that their organizations are poor at bringing innovations to commercialization.
How can we improve the success rate of seeing innovations through to commercialization? There are two major points where innovation erosion occurs, both of which involve transitions in the development process. By carefully managing these transitions, innovation erosion can be minimized.
Erosion at the insight transition
In the research and strategy phase that lays the groundwork for a new product development effort, ideally customer insights have been obtained through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (ethnography, surveys, etc.), the competitive landscape has been mapped, technologies assessed for their promise and viability, and business cases developed to evaluate new opportunities. The question is, will people be open to the ideas put forward in the research?
Imagine you are in the camcorder group at market leader Sony. What if research indicated that what people actually wanted was 180 degree opposite to the sophisticated, feature-rich products you'd successfully been making for decades? Such an idea would take some ramming (as Aiken would say).
But that's exactly the brief that led startup Pure Digital (now owned by Cisco) to design the Flip camcorders. Pure Digital realized that traditional camcorders were failing at what most people want when shooting video: simple, unobtrusive and fun to use, and easy to share.
By having the courage of their convictions from their research, and by having the design team intimately familiar with the research insights and unencumbered by years of legacy, the "low quality" Flips have gone on to completely disrupt a market dominated by consumer electronics behemoths.
Erosion at the engineering transition
The second major erosion point comes at the transition from design into detailed engineering for implementation, whether it is for manufacturing of a physical product or coding of a software product.
Too often the engineering staff is brought in late in the development process, with the result that the inevitable changes required for implementation are difficult to accomplish, and are missing the context of the research and design. Without knowledge of the design intent and the nuances of user experience design choices, the changes are made in a vacuum, and can inadvertently erode the innovation. The problem is exacerbated if the implementation is being handed off to a third party, as is often the case.
Another downside to involving engineering late is that opportunity for using new technologies as enablers of innovative user experiences are lost. At frog design, we have multidisciplinary teams all the way through the project, and engineers and software technologists are involved right from the start. When working with our parent company, Aricent, on an end-to-end project, Aricent's software developers work closely with our designers to ensure smooth transition of innovation intent. This means the designers are exposed to ways of using technologies that they may not have considered, and can prototype them in real time as the designs progress.
We have learned from hard-won experience that continuity of team members at these transition points, openness to research re-framing conventional wisdom, and early involvement of engineering/development staff, are all critical to preventing innovation erosion and launching products with their inspirational spark intact.
Adam Richardson is creative director at Aricent, and author of "Innovation X: Why a company's toughest problems are its greatest advantage."
I've seen plenty of NIH from engineers. I've also seen plenty of management short-sidedness. Those two traits certainly stifle innovation.
One other trait that I've seen, both in engineers and in corporate management, is failure to consider the whole picture. If you can make a new motor that's much more efficient than current models, but your manufacturing quantity will be severely limited by a limited supply of a key ingredient, is that a good business decision?
If you can engineer a design, but it is not manufacturerable, is that a good business decision? I've seen a lot of products built that would be great, except fort "one little thing." That one little thing has a disproportionately large effect on the profitability, manufacturability or useability of the product but is left out because it can't be fit into the schedule or budget, or is just too hard to do.
Hmm. Someone once said that there was no limit to the good a man could do if he didn't care who got the credit. I don't care too much who gets credit; my experience has been that people know where good ideas come from in a company. But of course, credit isn't the only consideration: there's paying the mortgage, and that definitely does require that the inventor get the credit and the financial kudos. Hence, most of us are careful to make sure that while we are modestly claiming the support and assistance of peers, and gushing about the giants whose dead shoulders we stand on, we are also leave a clear trace of responsibility. That, I'm afraid, is the way the world works, no?
Selinz, I'm not sure that the resistance to a new technique is always arrogance. In many cases, engineers correctly recognize the "new" "great" methodology as what it is: merely another process to follow. And in the war of process vs. product, engineers rarely want more process. In the worst cases, the "process" people become veritable parasites on the system, producing nothing and even worse, slowing everything down. That may be part of what you saw in your experience.
Hmm. Does this mean the solution is to license your most innovative inventions to the competition? The competition will take them to market, cover the costs of marketing and socializing the new concept, and allow your (now envious) employer to reap the financial benefits of being second to market for a product which is now in demand. I'd like to think there was a better approach...
While converting an innovation to a commercial product , the implementation time frame is very important. The flavor of the innovation will be lost if the conversion to a commercial product takes too long. By that time either the rival company has got a better idea than yours and are already in the market or the idea itself becomes obsolete as a totally new and cheap technology may be available to supersede it.
As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. In the 90's, Motorola invested substantially in "Invention Machine," a software based enstanciation of TRIZ. TRIZ is a acronym for a problem solving methodology attributed to Genrich Altshuller, a Soviet engineer and inventor from the 40's. The objective was to provide ideas to solve a problem from areas of technology from which you weren't familiar. Thus, if you knew it all, it was useless.. :-) I was involved in teaching the procedure to many of Motorola's "inventors" and found that most engineers were very skeptical of "aids" in inventing. Most would rather come up with a solution to the problem based on their own background and knowledge. So I think part of the problem is general engineering arrogance, which also manifests itself in the form of NIH. IMHO, arrogance is creativity's worst enemy. On the other hand, many cultures and companies operate on the mandate: "I'd rather copy a good idea than invent a bad one."
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.