"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

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

The Dangers of Design Research

The Dangers of Design Research
by Idris Mootee

What is design research? It is generally referred to as the upfront contextual inquiry work that designers perform before they start ideation. Sometimes it involves some light ethnographic work and some interviews, but it is often not structured, comprehensive, or rigorous. Design research emerged only in the late 1960s with the goal of improving how we see consumers use the product and look for ways to improve the effectiveness of a product. It is pretty much a human factor investigation and is now widely practiced, but is now facing a few serious challenges.

Design research is more than just a design tool, and the truth is that 80% of the time, they are not designed and conducted properly.

The emergence of transdisciplinary design is changing what skills are needed by those who undertake research design. These required skills go beyond improving a physical product and now include knowing how to build the voice of customer into the design research process, either directly or indirectly. The ability to collect data is not the critical activity, but instead it is the ability to decode visual and non-visual data and translate emergent issues into concrete, actionable insights.

The effectiveness of design research is determined by the research team's ability to translate identified functional and emotional characteristics into unique innovation drivers. Ineffective design research activities are often characterized by the presence of assumptive decision-making, lack of immersion into the consumer's world and undifferentiated innovation drivers. Design research is lesser known than traditional market research among marketers, and they often misuse it as a market research tool instead of applying it as a product development or innovation tool.

Many organizations are only beginning to use an receive the full benefits of design research. Many see it as an unnecessary cost because the people who performed it in the past did not do it justice. Improperly done, many of the presented outputs are useless and unactionable. There are many reasons for this. First, most designers are trained to observe the insights for the purpose of applying them directly to their work, but are poorly trained to codify these insights, while also lacking the writing and analytical skills to make sense of what they see. Second, observation research and individual contact is very consuming, particularly when you need to see them performing non-daily routines. Feeding useful data input into the creative process is a critical skill, one that is an "intuitive learning process." During this process ideas 'evolve' or 'mature' and lead to the improvement of the previous idea.

Design research at Idea Couture is not just an observation exercise; it is often a participatory exercise. I can't talk more to our proprietary methodologies, but they are a lot more than just sending in two designers to learn about how a consumer uses a product. It is not productive to do that. Cross-disciplinary teams perform design research at Idea Couture and consider issues from multiple perspectives - from anthropological to human factors and brand influences. Design research for us is the starting point of reflective collaboration, getting D-School and B-School collaborating to solve wicked problems. It is fun. Designers often like the idea of involving users early and generally hate focus groups. Unfocus groups on the other hand are hard to manage and often discussions get side-tracked. Involving users is always a good idea, particularly when you need to gain a deeper understanding of cultural issues - such as lifestyles and wider issues beyond functional details. This is why you need anthropologists.

It is interesting to see that the contextual inquiry hype has been migrating toward the participatory/designer-led corner of the design research space the last few years as design-led methods such as visioning and storyboarding have been added to contextual inquiries. Finally, a lot of designers have difficulties moderating an unfocus group evaluation for a product idea that they designed, as the personal aspects involved often cause some uncomfortable situations. You can see why design research projects are so difficult to design and conduct properly.


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



Idris MooteeIdris 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.

Labels: , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Exploiting the Competition for Innovation

by Mike Myatt

Exploiting the Competition for InnovationWhether you want to admit it or not, competition is part of your world, and likely a bigger part than you'd care to admit. Granted, exploiting the competition is not a novel concept. Even so, it is still very common to hear many executives adopt a competition neutral position. These executives simply don't believe competition to be a significant factor in the execution of their business plan.

While this may make for a nice sound bite, I don't buy it, and if they're truly honest with themselves, neither do they. In business you can either choose to deal with your competition (even if that means partnering with them), or you can opt to stand idly by and let the competition eat your lunch. In today's post I'll share my thoughts on the proper way to view your competition and how to identify competitive threats...

While some companies talk a good game with regard to competitive strategy, in my experience very few businesses actually address the issue in adequate fashion. I suppose much of my perspective on competition was formed during my days as a soldier and athlete. In the military we valued intelligence, studied our enemy's strengths and weaknesses, developed a battle plan around a solid strategy, and executed our tactical mission as if our lives depended on it - because they did.

Similarly, in my days as an athlete, our game plan each week was refined based upon the strengths and weaknesses of the team we were playing next. If we didn't study films and scouting reports, develop plays that would exploit match-ups, and execute our game plan we would lose... it was as simple as that. Dealing with competition in the business world is really no different than dealing with enemies on the battlefield or competitors on the athletic field... you either win or lose based upon your state of preparedness, desire and commitment.

How well do you know your competition? No, really... Not how well do you think you know your competition, but how well do you really understand them? Do you have a business intelligence platform? When was the last time you conducted a formal competitive study? Do your R&D and innovation programs evaluate the competitive landscape? Do your marketing, PR and branding initiatives exploit the competition? Do you stack-up as well as you think, or have you just adopted a position out of convenience?

The first step in developing a competitive strategy is to identify your current and potential threats, and then to prioritize said threats based upon perceived risk/reward and cost/benefit scenarios. The following list is clearly not exhaustive, but it is representative of the main competitive threats to a business. As the following list indicates, competition can come in the form of any one or combination of the following potential threats:
  1. Existing or potential direct and indirect competitors.

  2. Existing clients or end-users that could either become competition or strengthen your competitors if they have a change in loyalty.

  3. Current or former employees who could become competition.

  4. Vendors, suppliers or distributors that could become competition, or provide an edge to your competition.

  5. Competitive innovations in process, management, talent, pricing, efficiency, etc. that can cause disruption in the market.

  6. Strong changes in brand perception via news, PR, branding, litigation etc. can create changes in the competitive landscape.

  7. Competitive technology innovations that could adversely impact your business.

  8. Competitive mergers, acquisitions and roll-ups that could adversely impact your business.

  9. Political, legislative, regulatory, or compliance actions that could create a competitive imbalance in the market.

  10. Changes in general market dynamics that could create competitive changes in the market.

Once all areas of competitive risk have been identified and prioritized it will be much easier to develop a strategy for stacking the odds in your favor regardless of when, where, or how you encounter the competition.

The key to successfully exploiting competition over the long haul is linking your competitive strategy to the discipline of innovation and the mindset of custom centricity. A sustainable competitive advantage is not found by creating minor advantages in product features. Long-term competitive separation is created by innovating around the needs of your customers and clients with a focus on long-term value creation.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Mike MyattMike Myatt, is a Top CEO Coach, author of "Leadership Matters...The CEO Survival Manual", and Managing Director of N2Growth.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Pretending to be a Customer

by Mike Brown

Pretending to be a CustomerIt's a challenge to objectively examine your own website as if a prospect or customer seeking information would. There's an approach you can follow to get ideas flowing though: Look at a direct competitor's online presence, trying to shoot holes in it based on how a customer might view it.

You should really be able to get into it by answering a few questions:
  • What misleading or out-of-date information is presented?

  • What's not compelling about the website?

  • What's confusing about the navigation?

  • How much unnecessary detail do I have to supply to get a copy of the "free" download?

  • What questions do I have that the website doesn't answer?

  • Do I know where to get my other questions answered?

  • In what ways did I get smarter by browsing this website?

  • In what ways were my information needs left wanting?

After doing this, go back and see how your own online presence compares. Looking at yourself from a customer perspective should now be much easier!


Editor's Note: When you're in a pinch (or without a research budget), you could also use this technique with employees (preferably new ones) for more than just web sites.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!



Mike BrownMike Brown is an award-winning marketer and strategist with extensive experience in research, strategy, branding, and sponsorship marketing. He's a frequent keynote presenter on innovation and authors Brainzooming!

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Friday, December 25, 2009

Scouting for Innovation

by Stefan Lindegaard

Scouting for InnovationNerac is a global research and advisory firm for companies developing innovative products and technologies. Two of their employees, Kristy Lutz Ulmer and Margaret Fiore, recently published a report on how companies scout for innovation.

I just got to read it and I find this to be great stuff that I want to share with you. You should also download the full report here - Innovation Scouting For 2009

The findings in the report fit well into a key thing being discussed in the open innovation community right now; the real effects of open innovation are due to behind-the-scenes activity rather than flashy portals and idea-generation campaigns.

The report has lots of great insights and the authors want to highlight these conclusions:
  • Innovation scouts acknowledge a general lack of formal knowledge of the process of scouting, including how to find and evaluate ideas.

  • The more integrated a company's products are into other companies' products, the higher the likelihood that scouting is considered important.

  • There are many different approaches for implementing innovation scouting, with companies using internal innovation scouts, external partners, third party scouts, and consultants.

  • Most companies operate with a small cadre of scouts, usually fewer than six resources.

  • The scouting role is not always confined to internal R&D departments within an organization, but instead is often jointly sponsored across multiple business units.

  • Innovation scouts use many methods for finding new ideas, with competitive intelligence the most prevalent source of ideas.

As we can see from the snippets below, the report is full of data and interesting conclusions:

Usage of Innovation Scouts:
Of the nearly 600 companies surveyed, approximately 30% of the respondents knew that their companies use innovation scouts. Another nearly 8% were aware of plans to begin using innovation scouts. Surprisingly, just over 42% were unsure whether or not their company employed scouts, so the usage rate could actually be higher.

Age of Scouting Program:
When asked how long scouts had been in place, 37% reported their companies have used innovation scouts for over five years, followed by another quarter that have used scouts between two and five years.

Size of Scouting Program:
Most companies operate with only a handful of innovation scouts. Our survey found that of the respondents who use innovation scouts, nearly one third have fewer than three employees in this role. Only 14% have more than 25 scouts.

Objectives of Scouting Programs:
The most important driver cited by 70% of respondents was "early identification of disruptive technologies." This is followed closely by building the product pipeline, leapfrogging the competition, and creating something novel.

Sponsorship of Scouting Program:
38% said that scouting was sponsored by their R&D organization. Another 24% reported that it was sponsored by Business Development followed by 21.8% respondents that indicated their scouting was jointly sponsored by several executives or groups.

Scouting Resources:
Our survey sought to identify norms regarding how scouting programs are staffed. We found that the most common staffing approach (at 63%) is to tap company employees on a part-time basis. However, over 25% have full time employees in this position. Over a third of the respondents characterize their scouts as technically oriented, and over one quarter as business/marketing oriented.

Scouting Methods:
We found the most common techniques for uncovering external ideas include conducting competitive intelligence (76%), attending relevant conferences and tradeshows (72%), leveraging academic connections (71%), and exploiting their network of innovators (55%). Other, less common methods include the use of third party networks (41%), innovation "bounty" challenges (18%), and crowd sourcing (8%).

Knowledge Gaps of Scouts:
Our survey asked an open-ended question regarding the biggest knowledge gaps or primary training needs for innovation scouting. The most common response, by a measure of over 3:1, was a lack of understanding the "process" of scouting, that is, how to actually go about doing the job.

Successes and Failures:
More than two-thirds of respondents rated their innovation scouting programs as just "moderately successful," with only 12% rating their efforts as "very successful." While a majority of companies surveyed feel their scouting programs are successful, this indicates there is certainly room for improvement.

Great job by Kristy and Margaret of Nerac! Check the full report here: Scouting For Innovation 2009



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.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Monday, December 21, 2009

Creating New Innovations with Customer Insights

by Jeffrey Phillips

Crayon Maker - Creating New Innovations with Customer InsightsI guess my kids are just too old for crayons anymore, so I missed the Crayon Maker when it was first released, but I'd like to use it as an example of understanding customer needs and identifying lead users, and how an innovation can open up an entirely new market space and revenue opportunity.

For years kids have had broken crayons and their parents have melted them down and formed new crayons, often by mixing the broken pieces. My wife did this for our kids just a few years ago using a muffin tin in the oven. I'm going to guess that Crayola was aware of this activity, neither encouraging or discouraging the activity, until 2003, when it released the Crayon Maker, a machine that allows kids to melt down their crayons and create new ones. Now, crayons have been with us quite a while, and parents have been melting down the broken pieces for quite a while. What took Crayola so long to respond to these lead users who were creating their own crayons?

But let's push through the existing Crayon Maker and think about the opportunities for new innovation. Right now Crayola is only positioning the Crayon Maker to melt down old, broken Crayons. Why not offer Crayon Shavings or Crayon Bits, built specifically for melting down? These would probably be cheaper to produce, and Crayola could probably charge more for them, giving kids two activities - making crayons and using the crayons. Next, why not let kids make Crayons in different shapes? Right now the Crayon Maker makes Crayons in the same shape as they come out of the box. Creating forms or molds in different shapes wouldn't be difficult and could be more fun for kids.

Next, why not sell dies or additives that let kids make their own crayon colors? You could turn the creation of crayons into a science experiment, allowing kids to create their own colors, textures and perhaps even scented crayons. Simply by creating a machine that allows kids to create new crayons we can open up a lot of other product and service offerings. What's taking you so long, Crayola?

Eggo Legos - Creating New Innovations with Customer InsightsOr how about a mold that allows you to make your own Legos? A firm such as Lego could easily create and sell molds that allowed children and parents to make their own Legos out of Play-Dough or bread dough or a host of other viscous material. Then the kids could create, and play with, their own Legos, perhaps creating Legos of different colors and textures. When they were done playing with them, they could easily dispose of them (or in the case of Bread Legos, perhaps eat them!)

These examples are simply thought exercises that indicate how innovation should work. A customer need or lead user is identified, a new product or services is delivered and it opens up an entirely new market opportunity. What customer insights are hiding in plain sight in your business? What lead users are creating products and services to simplify their lives based on your products or information?

Think this doesn't happen in the "real world" of adults? Check out Mint.com, which is taking the financial world by storm. Mint simply helps individuals consolidate a view of their financial lives online. What we've been doing in spreadsheets is now done automatically for us by Mint. Why didn't the banks see this opportunity? What new products and services could a Mint create by offering a consolidated view of your financials?

It's important to interact with your customers and understand what they are doing and creating to improve your products. Sometimes you may discover customers who have created entirely new products or solutions based on your existing products. These lead users often point the way for new product or service development. Once that new product or service is developed, it can open an entirely new market for your firm.



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

Sunday, September 06, 2009

A Cosmetic Fix?

by Steve McKee

Cosmetic FixOne of the questions I'm frequently asked by corporate leaders struggling to manage in the current environment is how far to go with their cost-cutting measures. With their companies suffering sales declines, they've got to trim somewhere to maintain profitability (and in some cases to stay afloat), but they don't want to cut the wrong things.

Recent moves by Jean-Paul Agon, CEO of L'Oreal, offer a good example. The luxury cosmetics maker has had a difficult year so far, in part because it "scrimped" on brand promotion, reports the Wall Street Journal. In light of this Agon knew he had to cut back, but he has done so wisely. He launched a reorganization plan which included a hiring freeze. He trimmed travel expenses and even closed three factories. What Agon did not do was cut off the company's lifeblood, marketing and R&D.

Says Agon, "We're strengthening our media and promotion. It's a brave strategy because when you face a crisis, most companies say I'm going to reduce my media budget. We decided to do just the opposite." When it comes to R&D, Agon is even more resolute: "The last thing to do would be to give up innovation because cosmetics is really about permanently inventing new products, new technologies, new benefits, new results."

There is no cookie cutter answer for how a struggling company should cut back to make its numbers work. But when you're faced with those difficult decisions, do your best to trim expenses and leave the investments in place.



Steve McKee is a BusinessWeek.com columnist, marketing consultant, and author of "When Growth Stalls: How it Happens, Why You're Stuck, and What To Do About It." Learn more about him at www.WhenGrowthStalls.com and at http://twitter.com/whengrowthstall.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Seven Reasons Your Business Should Be On Twitter

by Matt Heinz

Twitter for BusinessI can think of seven specific, revenue-producing reasons why most businesses should be on Twitter. If your customers are using Twitter, you probably should be to. But how, and why?

Here are seven places to start:


1. Get New Customers

What do you sell? There are prospective customers talking about it on Twitter right now. Do a search for that product or service or topic and you'll find them. Reply to their tweets, and engage with them directly as prospective new customers. Better yet, start sending your own tweets with the same keywords or hashtags (which is the keyword with a # in front of it to help others find it). That way you'll start attracting new customers to you with the same topics or products.


2. Keep In Touch With Customers & Fans

Find out which of your customers are using Twitter, ask them to follow you. Follow them in return. Share news about your business, your new products, and topics your customers collectively will care about. Reply directly to your customers & fans, and retweet their Twitter posts that would be interesting to the rest of your followers. Twitter is a great way to keep an ongoing, interactive conversation going with your customers between purchases.


3. Watch Your Competitors

Who do you compete with? They're either on Twitter too, or are being talked about there. Do searches for them directly, and you'll not only see what they're talking about to their customers and prospects, but you'll also see what their current customers are saying about them - good, bad and ugly. Not a bad way to find new prospective customers, but at minimum you'll keep closer tabs on the competition - including gleaning things you could be doing to grow your own business.


4. Announce Sales & Specials

Putting that summer line on sale? Tell your Twitter fans. Announce that anyone who retweets the discount to their own followers is entered in a drawing for free product. Send special coupons and offers exclusively to your Twitter followers (which will encourage more customers to follow you).


5. Generate Referrals

Contribute content or links that your followers will retweet to their own followers. This will drive new customers to discover and follow you. Run a contest for anyone who retweets about your business today - all new followers and those who retweet are entered in a drawing for a gift card, or free product.


6. Cross-Promote Neighboring Businesses

If you're in retail or a restaurant in particular, and physically sit with other businesses, you're in it together as far as foot traffic goes. Help promote your neighbor businesses to your followers - even if they themselves aren't yet on Twitter. The more business you help drive to them, the more they'll help drive to you - either directly or via the increased foot traffic to your general area.


7. Cross-promote Similar Businesses in Other Markets

You're a unique hotel in Seattle? Partner with similar hotels in other markets and cross-promote each other to travelers. High-end French restaurant? Do the same. Build a partner network via Twitter to quickly accelerate the volume of out-of-town traffic you generate.


What did I miss?


How are you using Twitter specifically to generate new customers and repeat business?



Matt Heinz is principal at Heinz Marketing, a sales & marketing consulting firm helping businesses increase customers and revenue. Contact Matt at matt@heinzmarketing.com or visit www.heinzmarketing.com.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

When Not to Use Focus Groups


I'm still a fan of focus groups. Yes, they're mostly qualitative, and at best you're capturing information from a handful of customers that may or may not be representative.

But the richness of information, the multi-dimensional and behavioral feedback is unique to that environment. And with some products (trying on jackets, or testing perfume for example) sending an email survey just doesn't cut it.

But to make focus groups effective, you have to consider what information you're gathering. If you want insights on current customer perceptions, focus groups are good. If you want to measure how current opinions might map to a future idea, great.

But if you want to capture accurate, directional feedback on an innovative new idea, good luck. Focus groups - or simply the act of asking any set of prospective customers their opinion - won't get you anywhere. In fact, it may point you in the wrong direction.

Your customers - current and future - know what they know. They like what's comfortable, what's expected. Throw something new in front of them, and you're asking them to adjust their current worldview. That doesn't always go well.

Innovative ideas, products and services don't always take right away. Even the early adopters don't always initially like it. So how would you expect a group of strangers (or even loyal customers!) to give you accurate feedback on something entirely out of their current frame of reference?

Too often focus groups are used to test new ideas, well beyond current thinking, and the negative feedback collected shuts down the idea before it gets to market - even for a measured test.

And that's a shame, because you can't expect even a well-targeted audience to understand something totally different, even if it will be critical to their productivity, happiness and/or success in years to come.

Innovation, for better or worse, is still about using your instincts and a direct read on the market and its needs. It's not always quantitative. If it was, it would probably be a lot easier and more frequently achieved than it is today.



Matt Heinz is principal at Heinz Marketing, a sales & marketing consulting firm helping businesses increase customers and revenue. Contact Matt at matt@heinzmarketing.com or visit www.heinzmarketing.com.

Labels: , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

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