2010 - Beginning of a Touch and Gesture Future?

by Idris Mootee

With the proliferation of multi-touch technologies and innovations, we face an exciting new future of physical interactivity that will be like doing tai-chi.

Will multi-touch become the mainstream interactive experience on small devices? The holy grail of touch interactivity is bringing together the simplicity of hand gestures with deep navigation. Will multitouch create a new user language much as we learn how to type? Imagine when multi-touch is deployed in home appliances such as washing machines and microwave ovens? Gestural commands can be much less obvious to users than those written on buttons and menus and can create a whole new set of challenges. It means more challenge for human factors people.

It is interesting to envision how a broad-based, mass-scale utilization of the technology beyond the iPhone/iTouch/iPad/iDesk. I want to see a digital desk where there are no computers, the surface is the computer and my smartphone connects to the cloud. And I want the desk to look like a Herman Miller Sense desk. I want to have a built-in Skype conference call widget and... oh yes, Facebook on my desk. I guess we need to retrain ourselves to use this, as we need to create a set of hand gestures standards in order to be productive with our digital desk.

Asus already has a dual-screen laptop, still in concept stage, but with a touchscreen instead of a keyboard, opting for a virtual keyboard just like the iPhone. This is a step towards the digital desk. The dual panel offers a flexible working space in which users can adapt to suit their prevailing usage scenarios, for example adjusting the size of the virtual touchpad and keyboard. Through hand gestures, handwriting recognition and multi-touch, users are given with a control surface that is both flexible and intuitive.

The touchscreen display market will be growing from US$2.2 billion this year to US$3.4 billion in 2014 according to NanoMarkets, a research firm. The growing demand for touch-screen technologies in mobile and portable computing will create new opportunities for suppliers of conductive coatings, substrates and sensors in addition to the display firms themselves. Mainstream display makers have begun to develop their own "in-pixel" technologies as an alternative to the current industry practice in which third-party suppliers add a touch sensor subsystem on top of an LCD display and then sell to OEMs. Instead of supplying companies such as HP, LG, Samsung, Toshiba and Sony, these mid-size touchscreen OEM manufacturers may end up competing against them. These companies include FlatFrog, RPO, Microsoft, NextWindow, TouchCo and Vissumo.

In the next 24 months we can expect to see the increasing prevalence of physical and gestural interactivity, beyond the Wii and the iPad. One thing for sure is that we're all going to be dealing with the fun as well as the challenge of interacting with and designing devices in different ways. One big challenge is simply due to the lack of transparency into the "commands" or actions available with a given device or environment, we don't see a switch in the air and there is nothing for us to touch.

Looking into the exciting new future of physical and special interactivity, we will need to create idioms and new vocabulary that are as discoverable and useful as possible. We will find out in 10 years time whether these new touch-based interactive paradigms such as gestural interfaces will be making life easier for us or creating a new interactivity divide between those who can use it and whose who gave up on it. Instead of learning to type like my parent's generation, the next generation may be learning how to do the 'tai-chi' of interactive gestures. Human Factors guys now need to learn tai-chi.


Don't miss a post - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Protecting Open Innovation from Corporate Antibodies

by Andrea Meyer

Point: By picking where open innovation occurs and what it communicates to the rest of the organization, innovators can protect open innovation efforts from corporate antibodies

Story: All organizations, especially large ones, have an "immune system" in the form of an army of fine-tuned antibodies that root out risk and threats to the smooth-operating status quo. These antibodies help drive efficiencies, attack waste, promote uniform performance, and prevent infection for foreign ideas.

That's good for efficiency, but innovation requires taking risks and changing the status quo to create more value. That makes innovation a prime target for the cleansing action of antibodies. Open innovation (OI) is especially prone to antibody response because it involves foreign ideas. At the December 2009 Open Innovation Summit, presenters from HP, CSC, Clorox, and Shell described how they avoided corporate antibodies at their companies. The techniques addressed who participates in open innovation, where they operate, and what they communicate so that innovation succeeds and doesn't get killed by antibodies.

For example, Russ Conser, Manager of EP GameChanger at Shell, offered a good metaphor for where to do open innovation. He showed an image of a young girl building a castle in a sandbox under a large umbrella. The sandbox metaphor works on two levels. It provides a protected place for innovation to do its value-creating experimental work. The sandbox also is the container for the innovator's gritty sand, protecting the larger organization from the risky rough ideas.

Phil McKinney, SVP and CTO at Hewlett Packard, concurred - HP put its OI in a quiet corner of the Personal System Group. The sandbox creates an antibody-free zone for innovation work and protects the larger organization from the early-stage risks of innovation.

When communicating about open innovation efforts, innovators' communications can either attract attacking antibodies or help pacify them. What innovators and their representatives say determines how antibodies react. For example, Lemuel Lasher, Chief Innovation Officer at CSC, cautioned that innovators shouldn't be too quiet or too secretive, especially when the facts are on the side of the innovator. Innovators should be provocative as long as they don't provoke too strong an immune reaction.

Ed Rinker, Manager of the Technology Brokerage Group at Clorox, used hard-hitting facts to convince his organization to deviate from its brand strategy. Consumer trends toward gentle green and natural products seemed antithetical to the Clorox brand of strong cleansers. Rinker used facts like marketing tests that proved consumers preferred GreenWorks with the Clorox name on the product to convince the antibody nay-sayers.

The most-cited communications recommendation, used at HP and Shell's programs, is communicating what the innovators did and not what they are doing or planning to do. This focuses the discussion on the new products, new customers, new revenues, and new profits generated by innovation, rather than on the potentially risky or disruptive projects underway by the innovators. Shell's Gamechanger Group continues to thrive after 12 years inside the billion-dollar giant because they show results.

Action:

• Find an 'air-cover' executive who provides the umbrella of protection for innovation
  
• Use a quiet corner or sandbox where innovators can generate results without interference or creating risk
  
• Describe the good projects you did, not the risky projects you're doing or plan to do
  
• Live on the boundary between sufficiently provocative and excessively provoking

---

Author of more than 450 company case studies and contributor to 28 books, Andrea Meyer writes & ghostwrites about innovation, IT and strategy for clients like MIT, Harvard Business School, McKinsey & Co., and Forrester Research. Follow her at www.workingknowledge.com/blog and twitter.com/AndreaMeyer.

Rules of the HP Garage

[The garage where Hewlett and Packard started HP, 1939 photo]

by Paul Williams

Founders Bill Hewlett and David Packard had the right idea when they first built their company. They believed if you had passion for what you did - and did it with quality - the money will follow.

This was a pretty radial idea back in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Their approach to business became known as the "HP Way." And later the title of the book David Packard wrote about building HP. (The HP Way).

They started their business in a one-car garage in Palo Alto, California. (That garage has been dubbed the birthplace of Silicon Valley).

In 1999, HP CEO Carly Fiorina, summarized the spirit of that HP Way with her Rules of the Garage:

• Believe you can change the world.
  
• Work quickly, keep the tools unlocked, work whenever.
  
• Know when to work alone and when to work together.
  
• Share tools, ideas. Trust your colleagues.
  
• No politics. No bureaucracy. (These are ridiculous in a garage).
  
• The customer defines a job well done.
  
• Radical ideas are not bad ideas.
  
• Invent different ways of working.
  
• Make a contribution every day. If it doesn't contribute, it doesn't leave the garage.
  
• Believe that together we can do anything.
  
• Invent.

While HP has had ups and downs in the past years, you can't take away from the original spirit, values, and soul of the garage.

Did you know their first substantial sale was to Walt Disney. They sold him eight audio oscillators.

---

Paul Williams is a professional problem solver at Idea Sandbox. He can help you create remarkable ideas to grow your business. You may read more at his website and find him Twittering as @IdeaSandbox.

Why Open Innovation Matters

by Stefan Lindegaard

A few weeks back someone told me an interesting story about Procter & Gamble and their competitors. It is well-known that P&G is the open innovation champion and their long focus on open innovation has given them an important advantage.

They get to see interesting proposals within their business areas before their competitors. In the story I heard, one of P&G competitors complained they only saw ideas and proposals that P&G already had rejected. Ouch, talk about being a second-tier choice...

This leads to a very important point on open innovation for market leading companies and those aspiring to be. The key game is to become the preferred partner of choice.

A preferred partner of choice simply gets to see the best ideas first and such a position can help a company out-innovate their competitors and develop substantial long term overall business advantages.

As each industry only has one - or perhaps two - winners in this game, companies should begin to focus harder on their open innovation strategy and efforts. It becomes even more important as this positioning game already plays out in many industries. Let me give you a couple of examples.

Mobile phones: Apple and Nokia seem to have taken the lead here. I do not see much open innovation activity from Motorola, Samsung, HTC and the other players.

Software: IBM, SAP and Intuit are doing great things here. I acknowledge that software is a very broad business category that can be divided into smaller segments. Nevertheless, these are the companies I hear about on open innovation. What about the many other companies?

Technology: Cisco seems to build momentum over their direct competitors HP, Alcatel-Lucent and Juniper Networks.

Companies should have in mind that this game is very much about perception. A company starts an open innovation-like initiative and if they get some success they are encouraged to continue down this path. This is picked up by bloggers and others in the open innovation community and the word quickly spreads that a certain company is doing interesting things.

This spreads just as fast in the industry of the given company resulting in two things; internally the company gains even more momentum on their open innovation efforts and externally the company is perceived as an open innovation leader within the given industry.

Voila, the company is on its way to claim a preferred partner status and if they do not mess up they can soon reap the benefits of this.

I think this provides another example of why companies need to wake up with regards to open innovation. Your thoughts?

---

Stefan Lindegaard is a speaker, network facilitator and strategic advisor who focus on the topics of open innovation, intrapreneurship and how to identify and develop the people who drive innovation.

BOF 3.0 - Ruffle Your Innovation Feathers

I had the opportunity to attend Brightidea's Birds of a Feather (BOF 3.0) event at Chevron's headquarters the other day. For those of you not familiar with Bright Idea Birds of a Feather events, they are periodic events for innovation practioners from Brightidea customers (e.g. HP) and non-customers (e.g. Chevron) to get together to discuss innovation challenges and share practical experiences peer-to-peer. The third incarnation of BOF was hosted in Chevron's 'Innovation Zone' - a flexible space used to inspire creativity where:

• everything is on wheels


• the space can be used for multiple purposes (including prototyping, recruiting, training, sharing)


• people can experiment with co-location of groups


• informal meetings and mentoring can take place when the space is not scheduled

The day was a mix of presentations from Chevron and HP and unconference open-sharing sessions, interspersed with breaks for people to just talk one-to-one with colleagues from other companies.

The Chevron Kickoff

Peter Breunig and Jack Anderson of Chevron shared their thoughts on innovation and ingenuity (a Chevron value). These included:

• Innovation must be focused on business strategy - For Chevron this means (finding oil, getting it out of the ground, and boiling it)


• Team-based innovation often requires convincing people that all want to be Michael Jordan, that being Scottie Pippen or Dennis Rodman is cool too and will help the team succeed (everyone has a role).


• You must maintain a crystal clear business focus or derivative projects can distract you


• When it comes to innovation - "Don't be afraid to let your horses run"

HP and The Garage

Art Beckman of HP spoke about HP's innovation management system that they have named "The Garage." In the words of HP, innovation management ultimately strives to systematically gather, organize, and collaborate on ideas. The innovation management push at HP is not just a way to improve management of innovation ideas but is also a push to bring together software and solutions people together to be a stronger team. The effort is helping to break down silos and encourage collaboration across geographies and functions.

HP is focusing on creating an innovation federation instead of a top-down model. The Garage team has been championing the model in advance of its rollout to build awareness and is putting the best model in front of the federated states that they can so that people want to use it (because they don't have to use it).

HP has innovation program leads in place in each business unit as the first step of their strategy. HP has created a process for funding ideas into action and is building out an incentive system for employees and executives too. Recognition may be the most important thing, but incentives don't hurt in HP's opinion. Innovation report cards and celebrating innovation successes also factor into their strategy.

HP has three people in The Garage dedicated to implementing the innovation management solution, and 15 Innovation Program Leads (some part-time - some allocated full-time), and some of those with big business units might have their own sub-level of Innovation Program Leads.

HP is looking to eventually take their internal innovation management solution externally to customers.

Open submissions are the trickiest part (ideas not submitted to specific innovation challenges) because they often end up generating answers to questions that nobody is asking. It is also a lot more work to get the business involved on these kind of open submissions, where innovation challenges generate ideas focused on a guiding question/problem.

HP has begun involving the business earlier in the process so that the Garage doesn't waste time evaluating or collating it. HP puts a lot more emphasis on campaigns and are putting together a repeatable process for getting a campaign up and going as fast as possible. HP is primarily focusing on generating ideas that are connected to the business (or a business unit).

The key is to get the problem for a challenge properly framed and make it visible to the organization through as many channels as possible. To that end, HP hosts webinars on the challenge, and are also experimenting with running in-person or virtual brainstorms on the challenge topic.

To maximize the success of any innovation management system, you should seek to involve the people who feel they may not have ideas to share, but may have comments or opinions to contribute on submitted ideas. Everyone has different innovation strengths. HP is utilizing a belt system (black belt, etc.) metaphor for showing and recognizing the people who are contributing.

Questions

How do you keep revolutionary ideas that might not have a business owner from being killed?

• The Garage team works on these, but the Garage team can't carry the idea the whole way

Two pushbacks an audience member:

• Why do ideation sessions if we don't necessarily have the money to develop the idea right now?


• I already have enough good ideas that I can't develop, why should I generate more?

How many focused campaigns do you think you can really run in a year?

• Probably in the 3-5 range (about one per quarter)
  
• Try not to ask the same people all the time to submit to multiple challenges in multiple locations


• They try to spread around the live challenges across several business groups

How do you integrate the work of HP Labs with the work of Garage and the business units?

• HP Labs is invited to the challenge and the Innovation Program Leads and other people in the business unit also work with people in HP Labs

Braden Kelley Insights

Different groups have different participation rates. Could this be a leading indicator on the level of trust or performance in a group? Groups with low participation rates could have low employee engagement, and may have a need for some extra attention to revitalizing the culture and trust in that particular group. This would be worth exploring - potentially matching up participation data with employee survey data.


More from the Brightidea Birds of a Feather (BOF 3.0):

• BOF 3.0 - Culture of Innovation Session


• BOF 3.0 - Innovation Fatigue Session

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Tomorrow - Bright Idea Birds of a Feather 2.0 - Innovation Conference

Tomorrow I will be lucky enough to attend an international innovation conference via Cisco's TelePresence solution. Brightidea, the software provider behind the successful Cisco I-Prize, is sponsoring the conference with Cisco tomorrow, February 2, 2009.

This Innovation Birds of a Feather conference will bring together innovation leaders both online and via Cisco TelePresence locations in Seattle, London, Silicon Valley, New York, and New Jersey.

The Brightidea Innovation Leaders "Birds of a Feather" Conference is a peer to peer discussion on innovation management among innovation executives and managers at top global corporations. It promises to provide a forum to exchange ideas and best practices on implementing innovation in large organizations.

Companies represented will include: American Express, Astra Zeneca, Safeway, Unilever, Travelers, Merrill Lynch, and more.

The conference will also feature three authors including:

- Mike Kanazawa - "Big Ideas to Big Results"
- Gregg Fraley - "Jack's Notebook"
- Joe Wheeler - "The Ownership Quotient"

I'll try and report on some high level takeaways after the event.

Braden Kelley
@innovate
Blogging Innovation

Wipro Makes a Necessary Move

Wipro is coming to America, and Romania, and Egypt.

It used to be that Wipro was an Indian company employing mostly Indians in India and that when they did an outsourcing deal with you, they would offshore the work to India.

Times are changing though. An increasing number of potential outsourcing clients are becoming disillusioned with offshoring (especially for software development work). The reasons can vary, but include:

• Development overhead that wipes out most of the financial gains


• Finding that senior development staff is better suited to coding than directing Indian subcontractors


• Time zone hassles


• Language barriers


• Employee retention issues

I can't say that I think this is a bold or innovative move. This is something that Wipro has to do or they will not be able to compete with IBM, CSC, Accenture, HP/EDS, etc.

While doing a process analysis for a large UK-based financial and healthcare software company I personally witnessed some of the drawbacks and the company's reactions to them.

The fact is that as more commercial and internal software development moves to using agile methodologies, companies will require any external partners to be in the same country or even the same time zone or possibly even the same building.

This is one more proof point that the world is not as flat as people once thought. In this undulating world, success will come in part from differentiating between times when the world is flat and when it is round.

What do you think?

Second Unnovation Award Winner - HP and Costco

I'm in the middle of trying to buy an HP Pavillion dv6700t Special Edition. I tried to buy it from Costco because you can configure it at costco.com for about 10% less than buying through HP directly.

Days passed, the promised ship date passed and an e-mail arrived saying that the wireless mouse I had "ordered" was out of stock. I was told my shipment would arrive late with a wired mouse followed by a month later by my wireless mouse.

Wireless mouse I ordered? I didn't order a wireless mouse. Phone calls ensued.

It turns out that HP, convinced people will only buy a laptop if a free wireless mouse is involved, had decided one must be included with every laptop order before it can ship. So I called, and asked for the laptop to be shipped on time sans mouse - no dice. Apparently, HP laptops are built and shipped directly to the customer from China, so Costco is only able to place or cancel orders, never modify.

Then this week an e-mail arrives in my inbox from HP announcing a Presidents' Day sale including 25% off the very laptop I had ordered from Costco. So, I promptly place an order on shopping.hp.com (at a $260 savings), and called and cancelled my Costco order.

Imagine my surprise when 36 hours later I get an e-mail from Costco saying that my order had shipped (my order from January 23). When I cancelled my Costco order they said I would either get a shipping or a cancellation confirmation but they had no idea which one. Which brings me to my points:

1. In 2008 how can this happen?
2. How can a transaction that should be nearly instantaneous, still not be executed 36 hours later by an undisputed technology leader and seller of technology consulting services?

Financially this snafu won't effect me (I can get an immediate refund at my local Costco), but it will affect Costco and HP. Costco will lose money executing the return. HP will lose money executing the return and also lose $260 because of their delay that allowed me to re-order at a lower price.

All because of a "free" mouse.