Peripheral capability – the way towards better product development?

Last summer I attended a class at Wharton Business School about Peripheral Vision – it was part of a Leadership Development Program arranged by LinKS here in Denmark.

The visit was great for several reasons, and one of the outcomes from my stay here was some great learning points about acting on the unexpected.

My teacher was Paul Shoemaker – GREAT authority in the field of strategic planning.

In my daily work I advice clients on how to cope with uncertainty, creating innovation cultures and helping them to understand how they can use multidisciplinary approaches towards better product- and business development.

Since my posting here at CPH127 back in the early 2006 I’ve been struggling with how I could link design thinking to the use of social software. In Connecta we are heavy users of Social Software as part of our problem solving process

But few months ago I got it – I think. Like the design-thinking ingredient I began to realize that social software provide several aspects which I believe is crucial for good development processes:

Multi disciplinary input
Open processes
Ability to prototype
Democratized dialogue
Rapid development
Improved timing in product launch

And by seeing that I think I got the reason why start blogging here at CPH127 again :-)

If you know about Social Software, innovation and design-thinking which similarities do you see - if any?

Posted by Hans Henrik H. Heming on March 17, 2007 in Design Process, Design Thinking, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Announcing a new global community

The Omnium Creative Network [OCN] is a free, non-profit online global community of creative people (students, professionals, educators, theorists writers and more). It's aim is to encourage members from all over the world to collaborate in a variety of ways, to focus their attention on more socially aware and ethically responsible art and design projects.

Membership is made up of participants from a wide variety of countries worldwide; in particular countries less fortunate in terms of having easy access to creative interaction through conferences,, publications and exhibitions.

Check it out...and join in.

Posted by Ian McArthur on May 4, 2006 in Design Thinking, Innovating with Diversity | Permalink | Comments (0)

The principle of co-creation

Mark just linked me to a great site about experience economy and design processes. It's a MUST resource for the many of us, really great and with some thoughtful links an resources too.

I just read an article there about experience economy and creating sense/meaning. It refers to the development of an innovation or an experience concept which involves a process of thinking, doing and reflecting. It states that both parties can certainly work together in this process, and they will book more success through their collaboration than either one could do individually.

Important in this regard are four building blocks that the article find in the work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). They speak of the DART principle:

1. Dialogue
Dialogue means interactivity, being engaged with each other and listening to eachother. Both parties (supplier and customer) intend to accomplish something. It also means that attention is given to the interests of both parties. This requires both a location in which the dialogue can take place and a number of rules with which both parties must comply in order to be able to hold a useful dialogue. The principle of ‘learning by sharing’ holds here: the company learns through the dialogue with the customer and vice versa.

2. Access
The traditional focus

for a company has been the transfer of ownership from the supplier to the customer. The supplier creates a valuable product and, by means of a transaction, the customer gets the product. The customer is increasingly interested in the experience of the product and not in owning it (see Rifkin’s The Age of Access (2000), Chapter One). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) argue for separating having access to a product or service from owning it. You can achieve reach and access by making information available and by providing instruments that regulate the access to that information. At any given moment while the sailboat you ordered is being built, you can see how far along the builders are and even intervene if you would prefer to have things done differently (www.summersethouseboats.com).

Telebanking offers you a limited access to the bank – that is to say, to your own account. You could imagine that you can gain access to a certain lifestyle. You don’t want to drive just one car of a certain brand, but rather a number of cars, from the most expensive to an MPV that you could drive on rugged terrain.

Access means that being able to get information that is relevant to you, simply and easily. You could easily and readily consult a doctor online or by telephone, for example. This could have a preventative effect: you adapt your behaviour before you become ill or unhealthy.

In India, farmers can show the results of their harvest via web cams and the Internet. Based on the images they show, they can then obtain the proper pesticides and won’t simply have to experiment.

3. Risk assessment
Risk here means the risk that the consumer runs. We have become accustomed to marketing communication only presenting the advantages of products and services. It is not yet common that also the disadvantages are presented in all honesty. But that is something that belongs to the principle of co-creation. Risk assessment is an important theme in co-creation relationships.

Risk assessment also has to do with the risks that the company runs. Lego encountered the following problem. Communities of Lego consumers developed specific software for the operating system of Mind Storm Robotics. As it turned out, their software was better than the one Lego itself had developed. So the key question was, who was ultimately responsible for that product that was developed? And what about the patent? This presents a complicated legal dilemma.

4.Transparency
In the past, companies have profited from the disparity between what the company
knows and what the consumer knows. This disparity has been melting away in recent years like snow in summer. Socially responsible entrepreneurship, openness and transparency are requirements of modern business. There are even symbolic examples of this. Volkswagen built a transparent factory in Dresden, where its Phaeton is manufactured. So-called ‘genius bars’ have been built in the new Apple Stores: the technicians help you to solve your problems; the back office turns into the front office and you can actually see just how the workplace works.

These building blocks must be seen in combination with each other. Value
creation no longer takes place within the company: value is created in the individual.

Posted by Hans Henrik H. Heming on January 28, 2006 in Design Process, Design Thinking, Experience design, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation, Leadership | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Digital Ethnography finds new connections point’s

I’m a heavy Flickr user and have over a few iteration re-discovered the possibilities in sharing photos. It’s amazing how easy it is to use, connect and share networks of interest.

Since New Year I’ve been working on a major innovation project for one of the truly market leaders in the food ingredients industry. As part of the project I’m considering using Flickr as an Anthropological tool, but I’m nor aware of the constraints or great possibilities, but can see a huge potential in using it..

Do you have any experience in doing so? Wanna share? How should I design this? Is it valid?

By the way – I see that Cheskin claims they invented Digital ethnography as a methodology. Did they really?

Posted by Hans Henrik H. Heming on January 27, 2006 in Design Process, Design Thinking, Experience design, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

What do clients mean when they request 'innovation services'?

Brianna Sylver makes some very good points in her article "What does 'Innovation' really mean?" about the need to understand the hiring organization or client's motivation for seeking 'innovation services'. As we all know from our previous attempts to define the word, 'innovation' means different things to different people and this can give rise to mismatched expectations. From the article,

Corporations typically seek innovation services in response to one of three situations:

1. They are currently engulfed in the flames of the "burning platform" (as Russ Ward, Director of New Product Development at IMP, Inc. calls it). Their profits are dropping, their products are not selling and they don't know what to do about it.

2. They have emerged from the days of the "burning platform" and have come to understand that innovation is not a start/stop process, but an evolving one that requires constant attention.

3. They are a leader in their industry and are determined to stay there. Failure is accepted within their organization because they understand and fully embrace the numbers game in product development.

In addition to understanding the motivation, she goes on to write about the importance of understanding the client's 'innovation tolerance' level which in turn helps define the success criteria for the project. This helps ensure that the project and it's deliverables are relevant and useful to the hiring organization - instead of situations where the consultant offers a 'blue sky' radical solution while the client just wanted an incremental product improvement. There's much more in the article including tips on understanding your client's culture and effective ways to improve the consultant/client relationship. Go read the whole thing!

Posted by Niti Bhan on January 15, 2006 in Design Management, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Interested in Complexity – understanding chaos?

Understanding complexity, seeing patterns and knowing where you fit in – personal leadership - in the process, in the picture is what is needed when dealing with chaos – I think.

But do you understand complexity, do you know how to deal with chaos? And what about your personal leadership?

I just found a bibliography on complexity resources that I what to share with you.

The reason why I think complexity and personal leadership is important is of course because I think it matters in terms of your ability to innovate the right way.

What do you think?

Posted by Hans Henrik H. Heming on January 10, 2006 in Business Strategy, Design Process, Design Thinking, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation, Leadership | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Innovation can rise up from the bottom too

After I wrote my post titled "Innovation Lessons from the BoP" it struck me that it would be far more appropriate a post for CPH127's global focus on design and innovation. It's a very long article, so I'll repost an excerpt below for context. I look forward to discussions on what we can do to assist those at the bottom of the pyramid with their efforts in innovation and design.

Prahalad states, in the introduction to his book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, that:
If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and value-conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up.
IMHO, the focus of the world, however, has been on the products and services that can be designed for the BoP, they have been recognized as "value-conscious consumers", which is but one aspect of Prahalad's assertion. The other side of the story, less visible in the public eye, is the opportunity to co-create with those he recognizes as "resilient and creative entreprenuers".

The question, that arose in my mind, after reading this recent article, is "Where is the venture capital, the product development support and the marketing opportunity for the innovations that rise UP from the bottom?" It seemed to me, that all I ever read about were products FOR the BoP.

Now there is an opportunity to really make a difference. As Prahalad says, four billion* poor can be the engine of the next round of global trade and prosperity, and can be a source of innovations.

Continued.

Posted by Niti Bhan on December 24, 2005 in Business Strategy, Design Management, Design Thinking, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

National Design Policies and Councils: Are they of use?

I'm throwing this provocative question out to our global audience on CPH127, whether establishing a national design council, creating a national design policy, or in general, bringing government support to the design industry has any benefit?

My reason for doing so is not out of any particular opinion on my part, instead, two recent issues in the news impelled this question out of curiousity. Especially since I know that our esteemed founders are closely connected to the Danish Design Council :).

The first article, from The Hindu, announces India's imminent ratification of a National Design Policy, creation of an Indian Design Council, and most interesting, their intention to create a "mark" to qualify good design. This article states,

"The National Design Policy will be announced in January. Merely coming out with a policy statement will not suffice, as it will have to be followed up with implementation. Among other things, the `Designed in India' label will have to be linked with a certain quality specification," Mr N.N. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, said.

The attempt would be to position `Designed in India' as a label that assures quality and utility. This could be in conjunction with other labels - `Made in India' and `Served from India'.

A mechanism will be worked out for creating a brand image for Indian designs through the award of an `India Design Mark' that satisfy certain criteria such as appeal, centricity, ergonomic features, safety and environment findings.

The EETimes, on the other hand, has an article titled "The politicization of Innovation" and covers the recently proposed bill submitted to the United States Congress, the "National Innovation Policy 2005" [.doc link] While I will not enter into the "is design equal to innovation" debate, an overly battered dead horse, methinks, I do however wonder if a national design policy or design council, along the lines of those established in Europe, (notably the UK, the DDC of course :), ANZAC and Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea - all leaders in consumer electronics) would benefit American industry. Indeed, this Innovation Policy, and it's intention to create a President's Council on Innovation, could possibly be the equivalent of a design council/policy, as per the other nations, I doubt though, that it is. These are it's three key initiatives,

increasing investment in basic research;

improving science and technology talent;

and developing a robust innovation infrastructure.

and their terminology implies a) that innovation is inherently technology led and that b) design is not innovation. On the other hand, for argument's sake, if this were a design policy and the intention was to create a national design council, do you think that it would be of greater benefit? If so, how and why? While on this topic, I'd like to throw out a few more questions on design policies in general, are they useful to nations? Actually, what I'm asking is, Hans, do you do anything over at that Design Council? :) [just kidding] Here's a link to Ars Technica, which has a pessimistic view of this initiative by the US to give balance, and perhaps add fuel to this discussion.

Posted by Niti Bhan on December 18, 2005 in Design Thinking, Industrial Design, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation, Leadership, Views | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Convergent vs. divergent thinking

Arthur Cropley has done a marvellous paper on divergence vs. convergence thinking– “In praise of convergent thinking", where he has some interesting observations.

Convergent thinking is oriented towards deriving the single best (or correct) answer to a clearly defined question. It emphasizes speed, accuracy, logic, and the like, and focuses on accumulating information, recognizing the familiar, reapplying set techniques, and preserving the already known. It is based on familiarity with what is already known (i.e., knowledge), and is most effective in situations where a ready-made answer exists and needs simply to be recalled from stored information, or worked out from what is already known by applying conventional and logical search, recognition and decision-making strategies.

One of the most important aspects of convergent thinking is that it leads to a single “best” answer, and thus leaves no room for ambiguity: Answers are either right or wrong. IQ tests are frequently regarded as epitomizing convergent thinking. Divergent thinking, by contrast, involves producing multiple or alternative answers from available information. It requires making unexpected combinations, recognizing links among remote associates, transforming information into unexpected forms, and the like. Answers to the same question arrived at via divergent thinking may vary substantially from person to person but be of equal value. They may never have existed before, and are often thus novel, unusual or “surprising”. Sometimes this is true merely in the experience of the person producing the variability in question, or for the particular setting, but it may also be true in an absolute sense.

Which kind of thinking do you practice, do you motivate in your organization? When do you see it is nessesary to be divergent/convergent?

However, contrary to what is sometimes assumed, both convergent and divergent thinking lead to production of ideas. None the less, there is a major qualitative difference: Convergent thinking usually generates orthodoxy, whereas divergent thinking always generates variability; otherwise it would not be divergent.

Opinion: Design Education and Culture

It was when I threw out a reference to the movie, Rashomon, by Kurosawa, while talking to a young designer at work, only to have him blink at me in response, that I was moved to write this 'rant' or 'view' or, in my case, 'informed opinion'. 'The Rashomon Effect', has become a reference for contextual truth or subjective reality, i.e. shared experiences may be interpreted uniquely by each member of the group or team, and for a practicing professional designer, one who deals in the world of interpretation, to be unaware of this seminal piece of creative work, appalled me.

When I asked him what his educational background was, he said it was a BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) in Visual Communications from a better known school in the USA. This is a four year degree on a university campus, where one assumes, one is exposed to the great works of film, literature and the arts in near human history. How then, can one be ignorant of the influence of Francois Truffaut, Peter Brooks' 10 hour long epic, The Mahabharata or even Leonardo's use of The Golden Ratio?

My intention here, today, is to begin a conversation on design education, and to ask all you, a global audience, to share your own experiences in education. Is this issue one that is only faced in the United States, where I've met and interviewed hundreds of designers seeking graduate design education, or is it prevalent in Europe, Asia and Oceania? Ian, as an educator based out of Australia with significant Chinese experience, what is your opinion?

In my own experience, I've been educated in the British system until the O levels, followed by a year in an american high school, then undergraduate degree in Bangalore and of course, a year at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad. From an early age, my schooling was such that I was exposed to world literature and culture, culminating in an intense experience at NID. In the 10 months I was there, I was exposed to Bharata Natyam through the AISEC, French filmography, the Battleship Potemkin, The Caucasian Chalk Circle et al. Every weekend, there was a film festival or a dance recital or an art exhibition. All of these influences, states the philosophy of the design school, written by Charles and Ray Eames, converge to create design professionals who are able to manifest in tangible form, their enhanced aethestic sensibilities.

Posted by Niti Bhan on October 21, 2005 in Design Management, Design Thinking, Innovating with Diversity, Innovation, Leadership, Views | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack

About CPH127

CPH127 is a sense-making initiative. We aim to create a open dialogue around the profound understanding of the leadership, organization and strategy of creative business functions with the aim to create new value (for customers, employers and stakeholders.

Search

Syndicate

Subscribe to this blog's feed