With Innovation, It's Trust But Verify

by Dr. Mike Shipulski

Your best engineer walks into your office and says, "I have this idea for a new technology that could revolutionize our industry and create new markets, markets three times the size of our existing ones." What do you do? What if, instead, it's a lower caliber engineer that walks into your office and says those same words? Would you do anything differently? I argue you would, even though you had not heard the details in either instance. I think you'd take your best engineer at her word and let her run with it. And, I think you'd put less stock in your lesser engineer, and throw some roadblocks in the way, even though he used the same words. Why? Trust.

Innovation is largely a trust-based sport. We roll the dice on folks that have already put it on the table, and, conversely, we raise the bar on those that have not yet delivered - they have not yet earned our trust. Seems rational and reasonable - trust those who have earned it. But how did they earn your trust the first time, before they delivered? Trust.

There is no place for trust in the sport of innovation. It's unhealthy. Ronald Reagan had it right:


Trust, but verify.


As we know, he really meant there was no place for trust in his kind of sport. Every action, every statement had to be verified. The consequences so cataclysmic, no risk could be tolerated. With innovation consequences are not as severe, but they are still substantial. A three year, multi-million (billion?) dollar innovation project that returns nothing is substantial. Why do we tolerate the risk that comes with our trust-based approach? I think it's because we don't think there's a better way. But there is. What we need is some good, old-fashioned verification mixed in with our innovation.

When the engineer comes into your office and says she can reinvent your industry, what do you ask yourself? What do you want to verify? You want to know if the new idea is worth a damn, if it will work, if there are fundamental constraints in the way. But, unfortunately for you, verification requires knowledge of the physics, and you're no physicist. However, don't lose hope. There are two simple tactics, non-technical tactics, to help with this verification business.

First - ask the engineers a simple question, "What conflict is eliminated with the new technology?" Good, innovative technologies eliminate fundamental, long standing conflicts. These long standing conflicts limit a technology in a way that is so fundamental engineers don't even know they exist. When a fundamental conflict is eliminated, long held "design tradeoffs" no longer apply, and optimizing is replaced by maximizing. With optimizing, one aspect of the design is improved at the expense of another. With maximizing, both aspects of the design are improved without compromise. If the engineers cannot tell you about the conflict they've eliminated, your trust has not been sufficiently verified. Ask them to come back when they can answer your question.

Second - when they come back with their answer, it will be too complex to be understood, even by them. Tell them to come back when they can describe the conflict on a single page using a simple block diagram, where the blocks, labeled with everyday nouns, represent parts of the design intimately involved with the conflict, and the lines, labeled with everyday verbs, represent actions intimately involved with the conflict. If they can create a block diagram of the conflict, and it makes sense to you, your trust has been sufficiently verified. (For a post with a more detailed description of the block diagrams, click here)

Though your engineers won't like it at first, your two-pronged verification tactics will help them raise their game, which, in turn, will improve the risk/reward ratio of your innovation work.


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

---

Dr. Mike Shipulski (certfied TRIZ practioner) brings together the best of TRIZ, Axiomatic Design, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (2006 DFMA Contributer of the Year), and lean to develop new products and technologies. His blog can be found at Shipulski On Design.

Innovation, Technical Risk, and Schedule Risk

by Dr. Mike Shipulski

There is a healthy tension between level of improvement, or level of innovation, and time to market. Marketing wants radical improvement, infinitely short project schedules, and no change to the product. Engineers want to sign up for the minimum level of improvement, project schedules sufficiently long to study everything to death, and want to change everything about the new product. It's healthy because there is balance - both are pulling equally hard in opposite directions and things end up somewhere in the middle. It's not a stress-free environment, but it's not too bad. But, sometimes the tension is unhealthy.

There are two flavors of unhealthy tension. First is when engineering has too much pull; they (we) sandbag on product performance and project timelines and change the design willy-nilly simply because they can (and it's fun). The results are long project timelines, highly innovative designs that don't work well, a lack of product robustness, and a boatload of new parts and assemblies. (Product complexity.) Second is when Marketing has too much pull; they ask for radical improvement in product functionality with project timelines too short for the level of innovation, and tightly constrain product changes such that solutions are not within the constraints. The results are long project timelines and un-innovative designs that don't meet product specifications. (The solutions are outside the constraints.) Both sides are at fault in both scenarios. There are no clean hands.

What are the fundamentals behind all this gamesmanship? For engineering it's technical risk; for marketing it's schedule risk. Engineering minimizes what it signs up for in order to reduce technical risk and petitions for long project timelines to reduce it. Marketing minimizes product changes (constraints) to reduce schedule risk and petitions for short project timelines to reduce it. (Product development teams work harder with short schedules.) Something's got to change.

The relationship between innovation and technical risk must be changed. For every unit measure of innovation there must be less technical risk. Or, conversely, for every unit measure of technical risk there must be more innovation. Sounds great, but how? Well, deep questions like this deserve deep answers, answers that only the great philosophers can provide. As it turns out, the great American philosopher (and baseball player) Yogi Berra provides the answer:


"If you don't know where you are going, you will end up somewhere else."


"Where we are going", our destination, is a solution to a technical problem which the innovation process winds us toward, and the probability we'll "end up somewhere else", getting lost, is technical risk. We've got to know where we're going if we're to have any hope of getting there.

The key to getting there is problem definition. Not the regular kind, but the physics-capturing kind; the kind that is expressed simply, with regular nouns and verbs, that can be explained to non-technical folks, and fits on one page.

It is a better way to distill problems rather than dilute them; to clearly, simply, and unambiguously define problems using words we can all understand; to trust, but verify. I call it One Page Thinking.

One Page Thinking is a method to define a problem at its most basic level so that everyone can understand it. There are a couple simple rules for One Page Thinking:

1. Each problem must be defined on one page.
   
2. There can be only one problem on a page.

Problem definition of this type is powerful and difficult, and it's the key to innovation. Once the real problem is defined, once the physics are understood and can be described plainly, the problem is solved, and the destination is close-at-hand.


Here is an example of One Page Thinking for the problem of being overweight:


The physical elements of the system are represented as blocks labeled with nouns (PERSON, FOOD, CALORIES); the actions are represented as arrows labeled with verbs (EATS, PROVIDES, POWER). The undesirable action is represented by a red arrow and an X in front of the verb (X MAKE).

All technical problems - even complicated ones - can be distilled into this type of simple diagram, but it can only be done if your technical staff truely understands the problem. True understanding is required to translate complex physics and math into simple nouns and verbs and to translate complex interactions into straightforward block diagrams. And, likely most importantly, true understanding is required to stand up in front of a CEO with only a single slide consisting of a block diagram and simple nouns and verbs.

So, if you want to find out if your technical staff understands the problem at hand, ask them for a one page block diagram using simple nouns and verbs.

Not many have seen or done this one-page, physics-capturing problem definition. And it's power is severely underestimated and poorly understood. I'm sure many think I'm off my rocker when I say that one-page, physics-capturing problem definition is the key to innovation. But, I stick by my assertion. Once this hyper-rigorous problem solving helps you know where you are going, innovation can be as straightforward as entering a street address into your GPS.


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

---

Dr. Mike Shipulski (certfied TRIZ practioner) brings together the best of TRIZ, Axiomatic Design, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (2006 DFMA Contributer of the Year), and lean to develop new products and technologies. His blog can be found at Shipulski On Design.

Reducing the Risk of Innovation

by Dr. Mike Shipulski

Though we can't describe it in words, or tell someone how to do it, we all know innovation is good. Why is it good? Look at the causal chain of actions that create a good economy, and you'll find innovation is the first link.

When innovation happens, a new product is created that does something that no other product has done before. It provides a new function, it has a new attribute that is pleasing to the eye, it makes a customer more money, or it simply makes a customer happy. It does not matter which itch it scratches, the important part is the customer finds it valuable, and is willing to pay hard currency for it. Innovation does something amazing, it results in a product that creates value; it creates something that's worth more than the sum of its parts. Starting with things dug from the ground or picked from it - dirt (steel, aluminum, titanium), rocks (minerals/cement/ceramics), and sticks (wood, cotton, wool), and adding new thinking, a product is created, a product that customers pay money for, money that is greater than the cost of the dirt, rocks, sticks, and new thinking. This, my friends, is value creation, and this is what makes national economies grow sustainably. Here's how it goes.

Customers value the new product highly, so much so that they buy boatloads of them. The company makes money, so much so stock price quadruples. With its newly-stuffed war chest, the company invests with confidence, doing more innovation, selling more products, and making more money. An important magazine writes about the company's success, which causes more companies to innovate, sell, and invest. Before you know it, the economy is flooded with money, and we're off to the races in a sustainable way - a way based on creating value. I know this sounds too simplistic. We've listened too long to the economists and their theories - spur demand, markets are efficient, and the world economy thing. This crap is worse than it sounds. Things don't have to be so complicated. I wish economists weren't so able to confuse themselves. Innovate, sell, and invest, that's the ticket for me.

Innovation - straightforward, no, easy, no. Innovation is scary as hell because it's risky as hell. The risk? A company tries to develop a highly innovative product, nothing comes out the innovation tailpipe, and the company has nothing for its investment. (I can never keep the finance stuff straight. Does zero return on a huge investment increase or decrease stock price?) It's the tricky risk thing that gets in the way of innovation. If innovation was risk free, we'd all be doing it like voting in Chicago - early and often. But it's not. Although there is a way to shift the risk/reward ratio in our favor.

After doing innovation wrong, learning, and doing it less wrong, I have found one thing that significantly and universally reduces the risk/reward ratio. What is it?


Know you're working on the right problem.

Work on the right problem? Are you kidding? This is the magic advice? This is the best you've got? Yes.

If you think it's easy to know you're working on the right problem, you've never truly known you were working on the right problem, because this type of knowing is big medicine. Innovation is all about solving a special type of problem, problems caused by fundamental conflicts and contradictions, things that others don't know exist, don't know how to describe, or define, let alone know how to eliminate. I'm talking about conflicts and contradictions in the physics sense - where something must be hot and cold at the same time, something must be big while being small, black while white, hard one instant, and soft the next. Solve one of those babies, and you've innovated yourself a blockbuster product.

In order to know you're working on the right problem (conflict or contradiction), the product is analyzed in the physics sense. What's happening, why, where, when, how? It's the rule (not the exception) that no one knows what's really going on, they only think they do. Since the physics are unknown, a hypothesis of the physics behind the conflict/contradiction must be conjured and tested. The hypothesis must be tests analytically or in the lab. All this is done to define the problem, not solve it. To conjure correctly, a radical and seemingly inefficient activity must be undertaken. Engineers must sit at their desk and think about physics. This type of thinking is difficult enough on its own and almost impossible when project managers are screaming at them to get off their butts and fix the problem. As we know, thinking is not considered progress, only activity is.

After conjuring the hypothesis, it's tested to prove or disprove. If dis-proven, back to the desk for more thinking. If proven, the conflict/contradiction behind the problem is defined, and you know you're working on the right problem. You have not solved it, you've only convinced yourself you're working on the right one. Now the problem can be solved.

Believe it or not, solving is the easy part. It's easy because the physics of the problem are now known and have been verified in the lab. We engineers can solve physics problems once they're defined because we know the rules. If we don't know the physics rules off the top of our heads, our friends do. And for those tricky times, we can go to the internet and ask Google.

I know all this sounds strange. That's okay, it is. But it's also true. Give your engineers the tools, time and training to identify the problems, conflicts, and contradictions and innovation will follow. Remember the engineering paradox, sometimes slower is faster. And what about those tools for innovation? I'll save them for another time.


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

---

Dr. Mike Shipulski (certfied TRIZ practioner) brings together the best of TRIZ, Axiomatic Design, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (2006 DFMA Contributer of the Year), and lean to develop new products and technologies. His blog can be found at Shipulski On Design.