"Blogging innovation and marketing insights for the greater good"
Business Strategy Innovation Consultants

Blogging Innovation

Blogging Innovation Sponsor - Brightidea
Home Services Case Studies News Book List About Us Videos Contact Us Blog

A leading innovation and marketing blog from Braden Kelley of Business Strategy Innovation

Monday, March 15, 2010

Adopt, Adapt, Improve and Innovate

by Paul Sloane

Adopt, Adapt, Improve and InnovateAdapting ideas that have worked in one environment and using them in another is one of the most successful of innovation techniques. Let's look at some examples.

In 1916, a young American scientist and inventor called Clarence Birdseye went to Canada as a fur trader. He noticed that people in Labrador kept their food frozen in the snow for extended periods in the winter. When he returned to the U.S. he developed this idea and launched a line of quick-frozen foods and persuaded retailers to stock them in freezers. He created the frozen food industry. Birdseye subsequently sold his business to General Foods Corporation and made his fortune. He saw a good idea, adapted it to his business environment and implemented it.

Alexander Graham Bell studied the workings of the human ear. He adapted the idea of the eardrum vibrating with sounds into the workings of a metal diaphragm which led to his invention of the telephone.

The motto of the Round Table is adopt, adapt, improve and it is an excellent guideline for implementing new ideas in your business. Taking ideas from other environments and adapting them for use in your situation is one of the best ways of implementing novel solutions. Amar Bhide of the Harvard Business School studied the origin and evolution of new businesses. He found that over 70% of successful start-ups were based on ideas that the founders had adopted from their previous employments. They took a promising idea in a field they understood and made it better.

The person who invented the roll-on deodorant was looking for a new way to apply a liquid. He copied an idea from another field, writing, where the same problem is solved. He adapted the concept of the ballpoint pen to create the roll-on deodorant.

Samuel Morse was the inventor of morse code. He encountered a problem sending signals over long distances on the telegraph - the signal became attenuated and weak. Then one day when he was travelling by stagecoach he noticed how the coach changed horses at relay stations. He adapted this idea to put in relay stations for telegraphs that boosted the signal.

In 1941 George de Mestral went for a walk with his dog in the Jura mountains in Switzerland. On their return he noticed that many plant burrs were attached to his trousers and to the dog's coat. They were hard to remove. He examined them under the microscope and saw that they contained tiny hooks that caught in the loops of his clothes and in the dog's hair. He developed an artificial material to mimic nature and in doing so he invented Velcro.


Putting this creativity technique to work

If you have a problem try to force fit a link with a random event or animal or institution. Then adapt some ideas from that environment. Say your problem is how to motivate a lethargic team and you choose at random the Olympic Games, a tiger and a Ballet school. What sorts of ideas would that trigger? You might offer medals as recognition for top performers. You could keep records of who has achieved the fastest qualified lead or the fastest assembly time and post them on the wall or the extranet in the form of Olympic records. The tiger might suggest face painting as a trick for raising morale or it might suggest hunting - you could have a treasure hunt in the office or organise a 'hunt for sales' competition. And so on. The ballet school students practice all their exercises each day before they perform a dance. This might suggest a high-energy group practice session each morning before work proper begins. Ballet dancers practice in front of mirrors - what if we installed systems that gave us feedback to build the team's motivation?

Alternatively, try to adapt a combination between your organization's main strength and that of other organizations or people. Say you provide high level training courses and you choose at random a hospital then you might come up with the idea of a consulting accident and emergency clinic where people turn up with their problems and you help diagnose them on the spot. Or you may ponder that many people forget what they learn on training courses. In a hospital patients have ongoing physiotherapy sessions to aid recovery. This idea could be adapted so that you send out "physio trainers" to top up the learning of participants after they have completed their courses. Alternatively, if you think of the Boy Scouts then you might imagine a summer camp for some of your top clients or a "bob a job" campaign where you offer short introductory courses for new clients.

Lateral thinking is about finding new ways to solve problems. It is very likely that the current problem you face at work today has been faced and solved by other people. Maybe they were in your line of business or maybe they confronted a similar problem but in an entirely different walk of life. Why do all the brain work yourself when you can adapt someone else's idea and make it work for you?

Tips for finding ideas you can adopt and adapt:
  • Deliberately gather inputs from unrelated settings.
  • Take time out to discuss your problem with people from entirely different backgrounds. If you are a businessman then ask a teacher or a priest or a musician.
  • Read a different magazine, visit a different environment, see a foreign movie, drive a new route home, find some new inspiration in a different source.
  • Place yourself in a different environment and it will help you see concepts and ideas you can adapt. If you visit an Eskimo in his igloo, like Clarence Birdseye, you may come back with an idea as good as the one that built the frozen food industry.
  • Identify analogous situations in other fields and ask how they would be handled.

Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Paul SloanePaul Sloane writes, speaks and leads workshops on creativity, innovation and leadership. He is the author of The Innovative Leader published by Kogan-Page.

Labels: , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Innovation, Invention and Entrepreneurs

by Jeffrey Phillips

Innovation, Invention and EntrepreneursAfter all I read on the blogs and on Twitter, and all the new innovation programs and initiatives in state and local governments, I feel the need to revisit the definitions of these key words. While innovation, invention and entrepreneurs are important and somewhat interconnected, they aren't synonyms and they have different needs, intents and purposes. Whether accidently or on purpose, we can't allow them to mean the same things.

First, the definitions:

An entrepreneur is a person who starts a new business. That's not necessarily innovative, but it can create new jobs and new wealth, so it is valuable. Sometimes, entrepreneurs create new businesses based on new ideas, either inventions or new innovations. However, a person running a McDonald's is also an entrepreneur, but not necessarily innovative.

An inventor is someone who creates a new to the world product or solution. Inventions become interesting when they create value for the inventor or consumers or the world at large. Inventors are often innovative, but innovative solutions don't have to be inventions. Many innovations are new business models, new services or new experiences that aren't necessarily "inventions".

An innovation is a new idea that is put into valuable or profitable action. An innovation can be created by an inventor who then licenses her invention to others to commercialize, or commercializes the concept herself as a small business person - in this case as an entrepreneur. An innovation can (and often is) created by a large organization to disrupt an existing market space or create an entirely new market (the iPod or Flip Video recorder are two good examples). Innovation can happen in any organization, of any size. Additionally, there's innovation in governments, in academic institutions, and in not-for-profits. We typically don't think of these organizations as entrepreneurial or as inventing new things, yet they can be innovative. Further, innovations can be new products, but can also be new service models, new business models and new customer experiences.

The reasons the distinctions are important are hopefully obvious. There are a number of state governments, as well as the federal government talking about innovation policy. Read the fine print and they are really talking about funding and sponsoring entrepreneurs and technology transfer from institutions and universities. This may have some aspect of innovation, but doesn't really consider organizations outside the start-up realm. A vast majority of disruptive and incremental innovations come from larger, commercial organizations, and these organizations can become more innovative as governments adjust tax policies, intellectual property rights and a number of other components of regulation and legislation. Yet most of the state and federal initiatives are really targeted at starting and funding new entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Interestingly, if you stop to consider the most "innovative" locations in the US (Boston, Research Triangle Park, Austin, Silicon Valley as a few) you'll note that they have all three things in common - government, education and technology are closely linked and vital to all of these cities. Innovation thrives in an interlinked, internetworked community. The same isn't necessarily true of inventions or entrepreneurs.

The overwhelming focus as well is on product innovation, yet we see consistently that business model innovation and customer experience innovation are much more compelling. After all, the icon of innovation, the iPod, is simply another MP-3 player unless iTunes is attached. It was the radical change in the business model and customer experience that made the iPod a true disrupter. Yet we don't find too much focus or government initiatives in these areas. And almost no policy or funding for the organizations that need innovation the most - governments and educational institutions and bureaucracies.

Another thing - having been a founder in a start-up, most entrepreneurs don't need or want a lot of help from an "innovation" perspective. They are betting the farm on their one great idea. For them, its all a matter of execution to bring that one idea to life, and then successfully scaling that idea. In contrast, larger organizations which have lost the passion and initiative of the entrepreneurs need a great deal of help and encouragement to innovate, since they have much to lose if a new product or service fails. In larger firms there is almost never a shortage of ideas, but a shortage of risk-taking, passion and resources to develop the new idea. Interesting that the problem the small firms have (scaling) is one the larger firms can offer, and the challenge the larger firms have (risk-taking, passion) is one the smaller firms can offer.

We need all three of these concepts work well to succeed. We need inventors to create new products and new processes, and we need entrepreneurs to disrupt existing markets and bring these new products and services to the market. We also need innovation from large existing firms, because without innovation they stagnate and die. When we talk about innovation, invention and entrepreneurs, and when we put policies in place to encourage certain types of activities or investments, we need to understand the implications and ramifications of those words and actions.


"While closely related, invention, innovation and entrepreneurs are not the same things, and should not be treated in the same fashion."




Jeffrey PhillipsJeffrey Phillips is a senior leader at OVO Innovation. OVO works with large distributed organizations to build innovation teams, processes and capabilities. Jeffrey is the author of "Make us more Innovative", and innovateonpurpose.blogspot.com.

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Do Patents Hinder or Help Innovation?

by Stephen Shapiro

Some time ago I received a newsletter that had 10 wacky patents. Here's my favorite:

Centrifugal ForceApparatus for Facilitating the Birth of a Child by Centrifugal Force: With this invention, the mother-to-be is strapped down to a table that is then is spun to allow centrifugal force to take its course and aid in childbirth. This invention by a husband and wife team was patented in 1965, but surprisingly hasn't caught on in maternity wards around the country.

This raises an interesting question. Do patents help or hinder innovation?

The intent of patents was to protect those who make large investments in innovation. For example, a pharmaceutical company that spends billions of dollars on drug development and testing needs protection. Clearly these patents help innovation. No one would invest that much money if someone could come in and replicate their idea.

But what about patents that protect ideas; concepts where no real investment has been made, other than the expenditure of a few brain cells. Do these patents help or hinder innovation?

I have a patent pending for my "Innovation Personality Poker." My investment to date has been thousands, not millions of dollars. The main cost has been the design and manufacturing of the cards (and legal fees). But the patent is a process patent; it is the methodology I am protecting. Therefore, the investment I am protecting is my time. Is this really a proper use of patents?

What about patents where no investment has been made.

I have an idea that I may patent. It could save the planet through reduced landfills and reduced reliance on petroleum. My investment in this has been limited to thinking. If I pursue the patent, it might stop others from developing a similar invention. Wouldn't this stifle innovation? If this idea is so great, shouldn't we stimulate its development?

What are your thoughts? Do patents help or hinder innovation?


For more on the patent topic, check out Braden Kelley's interview with Jackie Hutter.


P.S. I will probably not patent my idea, but instead will find a manufacturer to partner with.



Innovation and ImprovisationStephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Labels: , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Friday, September 25, 2009

A Healthclub for Innovators

by Drew Boyd

TechShop LayoutBuilding a prototype of your innovation is a crucial link between conceiving the idea and commercializing it. A physical prototype helps you get immediate feedback from customers, designers, and financial backers as to the commercial viability of the project. It is a necessary step in the patent process. It is a pivotal point in the "GO vs. NO GO" decision, and it can save an inventor money and time as even Abraham Lincoln found out when he prototyped his patented invention.

Prototyping can be difficult especially for a small company or independent inventor. Here is help. Imagine a 15,000 square-foot workshop with tools, equipment, and instruction to build and prototype your inventions. It is called TechShop, now with three locations in the United States. From their website:


"You can think of TechShop as a health club but with tools and equipment instead of exercise equipment. It is sort of like a Kinko's for makers, or a Xerox PARC for the rest of us. TechShop is designed for everyone, regardless of their skill level. TechShop is perfect for inventors, "makers", hackers, tinkerers, artists, roboteers, families, entrepreneurs, youth groups, FIRST robotic teams, arts and crafts enthusiasts, and anyone else who wants to be able to make things that they dream up but don't have the tools, space or skills.

TechShop has milling machines and lathes, welding stations and a CNC plasma cutter, sheet metal working equipment, drill presses and band saws, industrial sewing machines, hand tools, plastic and wood working equipment including a 4' x 8' ShopBot CNC router, electronics design and fabrication facilities, Epilog laser cutters, tubing and metal bending machines, a Dimension SST 3-D printer, electrical supplies and tools and pretty much everything you'd ever need to make just about anything."



TechShop BadgeThere are many resources for getting a prototype, but most of these are the "Do-It-For-You" type. TechShop is one of the few that lets you, the innovator, come in and use the machines to "Do-It-Yourself." They offer a wide range of training courses as well as individual consultations when needed. It is truly a "healthclub" for innovators.

Perhaps the only thing I would add is a training course on How to Innovate!



Drew BoydDrew Boyd is Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Endo-Surgery division). He is also Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Cincinnati and Executive Director of the MS-Marketing program. Follow him at www.innovationinpractice.com and at http://twitter.com/drewboyd

Labels: , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Monday, August 10, 2009

Innovation - Automated

"To avoid the fate of alchemists, it is time we asked where we stand. Now, before we invest more time and money on the information-processing level, we should ask whether the protocols of human subjects and the programs so far produced suggest that computer language is appropriate for analyzing human behavior: Is an exhaustive analysis of human reason into rule-governed operations on discrete, determinate, context-free elements possible? Is an approximation to this goal of artificial reason even probable? The answer to both these questions appears to be, No."

Hubert L. Dreyfus
"What Computers Can't Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence"



This chilling conclusion about the fate of artificial intelligence seems to put an end to the idea that we can automate innovation. Since this book was first published in 1972, not much has changed, and the field of artificial intelligence seems to be in decline.

For a machine to innovate, it would need to:

  1. Take a product or service and break it into its component parts

  2. Take a product or service and identify its attributes (color, weight, etc.)

  3. Apply a template of innovation to manipulate the product or service and change it into some abstract form

  4. Take the abstract form and find a way for humans to benefit from it

I like the odds of a machine being able to do the first two steps. Imagine a computer that had the ability to "Google" a product or service to create a component list. Try it yourself. Search Google for "components of a garage door." You should be able to find several websites from which a component and attribute list could be developed. There are lots of Web resources available to machines to derive lists such as patent filings, engineering specifications, instruction manuals, etc.

At Step Three, a computer could be programmed to spit out new embodiments of the original product that have been altered by templates. For example, it could apply a template like Division to the garage door. It could create a matrix of internal and external attributes and spit out potential dependencies between them using Attribute Dependency.

Step Four is where machines struggle. How would a computer take an abstract "solution" and work backwards to find novel and beneficial aspects of it? What level of intelligence would it need to search the total human experience and match that solution to an unsolved problem of the human species? Is it possible? Not according to Dreyfus.

What if the machine could come close enough in Step Four? Imagine a machine that could suggest some reasonably good guesses where to take the pre-inventive form to create a new product or service. Invention Machine's Goldfire, for example, pulls together information from multiple sources and leads people to find ideas. It does the preparatory work, but you have to do the rest. It does preparatory work, by the way, better than humans. It gives humans an edge in innovating.

Humans are safe from machines taking over innovation. But they are not safe from themselves. Maybe we are approaching this the wrong way. Instead of trying to make computers more human-like, perhaps we should focus on making humans more computer-like, more logical and systematic when innovating. How can we help humans overcome their humanness to innovate more effectively? By perfecting the use of innovation tools and processes in a disciplined, rigorous way. That is a legitimate path to automated innovation.



Drew Boyd is Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Endo-Surgery division). He is also Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Cincinnati and Executive Director of the MS-Marketing program. Follow him at www.innovationinpractice.com and at http://twitter.com/drewboyd

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Sunday, December 16, 2007

You Cannot Always Invent Your Way to Innovation

I'd like to start today with a quote from a NASA article in Fast Company - "But sometimes the better part of innovation, is not invention but effectiveness."

I've detailed my views before on how invention is not the same thing as innovation, but to build upon them and the quote above - sometimes progress or innovation is achieved by taking value out of a product or service. Southwest Airlines created innovation not by giving passengers more food, more legroom or more options, but fewer. Apple succeeded with the iPod, not by providing more capacity or more features, but by making the features they provided more beneficial than the competition.

People ultimately do not care whether a product or service is better at the tasks it is asked to perform, but whether it more effectively meets their needs. These are not the same thing, and in fact make success far more difficult.

A sponge may clean better than all other sponges at absorbing liquids, but if to do so it has to smell like a wet troll, it is ultimately not going to be the sponge most effective at meeting customers needs (or likely to make repeat visits to their shopping baskets). Success becomes more difficult because customers don't always surface their needs. Chances are your market research wouldn't have surfaced their need for a sponge not to smell like a wet troll. But if succeeding becomes more difficult when success is not purely a technology challenge, then this is a good thing for the truly committed, because difficulty creates opportunity.

So during the product development process, don't ask yourself "How can we make X do Y better than the competition?". Instead focus people's attention on asking "How can we better meet our customers' needs?". If you focus on the second question, the competition becomes almost irrelevant, and you will become better at creating products or services that are more likely to be valuable instead of merely useful, and that is where true innovation lies.

What do you think?

@innovate

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Site Map Contact us to find out how we can help you.