The opportunity to become an “Innovation Strategist” catches people’s attention.

Since our initial posting for the role in Toronto, we’ve received over 120 resumes from dynamic, brilliant young individuals all interested in joining the Idea Couture team. From the outside looking in, innovation strategy sounds incredibly sexy (and it certainly looks good on a business card). But if you ask a typical applicant what exactly they think an innovation strategist does, what usually follows is blank stares, buzz words, or my favorite, “They strategize innovation”.

None of those are good answers.

There’s nothing worse than expecting one thing and getting another. In preparing to take on two new strategists in the next few weeks, I couldn’t help but reflect on what is becoming an industry title with no common definition. So I figured the least I could do is take a stab at some common tasks to help people know what they are getting in to, what they should consider learning to do, and where their responsibilities should lie.

So here are a few of the tasks, activities, and responsibilities of your typical innovation strategist.

Project Design
Innovation strategist as the planner

• Work with the client to articulate project outcomes
• Help design the structure of what innovation projects look like
• Set up the project’s research activities, and collaborate to select methods
• Build a multidisciplinary team based on available resources

Business Strategy

Innovation strategist as the box builder

• Interview clients to better understand what problems the team is trying to solve
• Help clients / the team state the project vision
• Help the project frame the problems based on client input
• Define what project success criteria looks like
• Draw from existing models or develop new frameworks to direct the solution

Design Research

Innovation strategist as design researcher

• Design and / or participate and / or facilitate research (depending on skills)
• Provide a business or user centered flaw to the other design researchers (depending on core competencies)
• Help researchers synthesize the findings into insights
• Frame the insights of user research insights through deliverables (personas, systems diagrams, customer journey maps, mental models, touchpoint analysis, or something else cool that I don’t even know exists yet.)

Workshop

Innovation strategist as a facilitator

Idea Development & Evaluation

Innovation strategist as an architect

• Help come up with killer ideas
• Help prototype, evaluate and test those ideas
• Make sure the final solution is in line with project briefings or has a damn good reason to break the brief
• Develop prioritization frameworks to evaluate which ideas are strongest
• Evaluate costs and benefits

Design Development

Innovation strategist as a sherpa

While innovation strategists are the center of my universe, being surrounded by a strong team is what makes a project work. An innovation strategist is nothing without the help of true and trained design researchers, skilled industrial and visual designers, project managers, futurists, human factors specialists, content strategists, and support.

But needless to say, when people ask, “What does an average day look like?”, there is no short answer. Being an innovation strategist is definitely a full time job, but even more, it’s a lifestyle decision. Innovation strategists are always working, because the world is where they learn, and their curiosity is not 9-5.

So what would you add? And are you interested in applying? We’re looking in Toronto and New York.

UPDATE: Add San Francisco to the mix. In short, if you think you meed the description, we want to meet you!

The last three weeks have been a whirlwind of workshops and social innovation. A speaking engagement at the 3P conference in Kitchener had me talking to technologists, business leaders and academics about how to use Design Thinking to make social change. A week of planning sessions in Montreal was about designing extended social programs for people with chronic illness. A productive few days in DC with the World Bank had us working on distributed innovation experiences for offices around the world.

I’ll be honest. I’m exhausted. But when you’re talking about innovation change, it’s hard not to focus on the greater good.

These days, there’s a lot of interest in Idea Couture’s social innovation practice. Much like design thinking, any new and fuzzily-defined term that enters the business world is at least partly cause for buzz. But on the plus side, I know that the majority of the interest is based on the opportunity that Social Innovation presents.

This isn’t CSR. This is business. It’s making money by doing good. And it works.

From pharmaceutical companies who know that their social impact will lead to financial impact, to technologists who are looking for new learning opportunities that extend their definition of value through solving problems of social change, these last few weeks have shown me that the social innovation world is alive. The great Peter Drucker said that, “Every single social and global issue of our day is a business opportunity in disguise”. It seems as though the business world is starting to catch on.

Three years ago, I sat down with a good friend from MaRS to talk about his experience working with not for profits. At the time, I had been hitting a wall doing some business model design work for a now-defunct not for profit. To this day, I’ll remember that conversation as a turning point in my career. “The problem with so many of these (not-for-profits) is that they’re completely afraid of money,” he said. Over the next few years, I’ve grown to understand what he meant.

It’s not necessarily a fear of income – very few organizations have the ability to raise funds like a well run not-for-profit. But for some reason, the dialogue of multiple winners from a giving scenario seems to make many not-for-profit’s uneasy. But whenever a problem is solved, new value is created, and in many cases, that value is being left on the table.

Thankfully, with the number of social-entrepreneurs that I’ve met since that fateful conversation, both through our incubation experience and through talks at a number of universities, a shift is on its way. It seems as though many people realize that one possible future of giving is to also get, be it through new organizational experience, new revenue streams, or reduced operational costs. With benefits like that, it’s no wonder there’s buzz.

The shame of making money through solving real social problems is on its way out the door.

Read any CSR book, and it will tell you that companies will eventually change – not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because their customers are demanding it. While this is certainly true (our design research constantly confirms that customers are asking for social-embedded products and services), I’m now seeing a lot of companies that are shifting based primarily on operational benefits. That puts a smile on my face because the social innovation mandate is coming from both the top down and the bottom up.

I’ll make this very clear – for Idea Couture, Social Innovation means using social impact as a business strategy. It’s about creating real, tangible value for organizations through tackling social problems with ties to their core business model. The expectations are high, both in terms of financial impact, but also delivering results on social impact.

Social innovation is the future of business. It’s hard not to read that and feel a little more optimistic about what’s to come.

Idea Couture has its roots in digital innovation. Frog, Adaptive Path, my good friends at Normative Design, and many other leading innovation firms also have amazingly strong foundations in the digital world. Three years ago, I left the interactive industry to pursue innovation consulting, and while I expected a painful transition, what I found was that infusing big problems with the sensibilities of the interactive space, no problem is insurmountable. Now, all of these firms call upon that experience to tackle problems much larger than designing websites.

I believe that interactive people are the world’s best innovators.

While today, the process of innovation is often labeled “design thinking”, people from the interactive space don’t really need to call it anything other than their job. The process of innovation has been intuitively embedded in user experience since people first started thinking about how websites work. What’s even more incredible is that the interactive space has only reached one billionth of its potential. While we draw on foundations of industrial design and architecture, we’re blazing trails in other unexplored territory.

Digital people are inventors

In a typical design process, defining constraints of a project is one of the very earliest steps. In the interactive realm, a constraint is treated like an opportunity to push the boundaries of a medium. As a result, people are more than willing to hack the rules or create new rules to make the optimal solution work. Their analytical yet lateral ability to solve problems is second to none. Interactive people are inventors.

Interactive people understand systems

Anyone who grew up in a web firm lived the life of the ugly stepchild. If you were building websites in the early 2000′s, you knew that your entire existence hinged on an appreciation of multiple service and experience paths. You were building within a larger organizational system and context – you were one piece of a puzzle. Interactive people are systems designers.

Empathy is at the core of innovation

A web design process is inherently user centred. It requires an in depth understanding of a person’s goals, and your job is to help them achieve those goals. That being said, interactive people understand that an end user’s experience is a reflection of both what you design and their own environment on the other side of the screen. We deal with issues of accessibility, issues of screen size, mobile considerations, situated experience, and more. Interactive people understand user centred design.

Digital people communicate

Since the beginning of my web career, I’ve understood design thinking tools. Prototyping, wireframing and storyboarding are all essential processes in the digital space. Apply those same skills to a service design problem, or to a product design problem, and suddenly abstract concepts make complete sense to your clients. Interactive people apply the design thinking toolkit every day.

Digital people understand performance

One of the largest barriers to innovation is the burden of proof. Since the very beginning of the digital era, people have been measuring websites to communicate the success of innovation, and drawing relevant parallels where no previous parallels existed. Digital people balance business and user objectives.

Interactive designs are always iterative

The day after you build something, you switch to optimization mode. There’s an inherent appreciation in digital that solutions can be elegant, but can always be improved. The idea of constant improvements and iterative design are fundamental to digital processes. They’re also core to the beliefs of innovators.

The medium is in its infancy

Ask an industrial designer to talk about the web, and they’ll base most of their thinking in what’s current. Talk to an interactive designer about the web, and they talk about visions for the future. Every day, some new considerations enters our design lexicon. And every day, some new startup is experimenting with these tools to push the boundaries of what is possible. Digital people are adaptable and flexible.

Innovation in product is innovation in digital

To solve product and service design problems, we need to migrate towards platform thinking. A product is no longer just an object – it’s a hub of connected information and interactions. Yes, strong industrial design can create an object of desire, but without inherently and intuitively applying digital sensibilities to that product, it will arguably be less competitive. Industries like music and publishing are transforming before our very eyes, and who are the best people to lead us into this unexplored territory?

Any of these qualities on their own are factors we look for when hiring innovation consultants. But what’s incredible about interactive people is that, more often than not, they have all of these qualities. And I know this is just a starting point in a long list of skills. I’m not trying to discount the capabilities of industrial designers, researchers, or architects who have found their way into the innovation space, but I do truly believe that the inherent understanding of all the qualities outlined above put former interactive practitioners in a unique position to solve big, important problems.

So did I miss any?

When you work at an innovation consultancy, you take the word innovation seriously. For three years, I’ve worked at Idea Couture helping dozens of organizations  design disruptive future scenarios based on real consumer insights, social and societal needs, economic imperatives, and technological signals. For many of these clients, I’ve seen real innovation happen.

What’s interesting is that none of these clients talk about how “innovative” they are. But they live it. In the grand scheme of things, these are the companies pushing the boundaries of their industries and changing their own internal values systems. That’s real innovation to me.

For your average everyday consumers, innovation means disruptive innovation. Does a car that reads your Facebook news feed really deserve to be called innovative, or is it just novel? Is a CPG company that releases Organic shampoo in 2011 really innovative, or are they just opportunistic? Is a communications campaign that crosses multiple channels really innovative, or could it just be clever? I’d argue that very few of the “innovations” that companies advertise are really innovations, and even fewer of them are truly representative of a general organizational culture.

As a result, in the corporate and consumer world, the word is at risk of completely losing its meaning.

These days, it seems impossible to turn on the TV, open a magazine, read a blog post or listen to a CEO without hearing a company’s “commitment to innovation”. What’s I find truly unfortunate is that the disciplines of PR and marketing are bastardizing a term with immense power and meaning. Having spent plenty of time studying the internal models of innovation at some of the world’s most “innovative” firms, I can tell you that their internal processes are innovation blockers, not innovation enablers.

The dirty truth is that while most of these firms love the idea of innovation (and may even be filled with innovative people), they hate innovation in practice. Innovation “introduces risk” instead of mitigates it. Innovation casts doubt on how things have traditionally been done. Innovation results in disagreements. Innovation unearths cultural gaps within organizations. Real innovation is culturally hard.

Most companies are happy make incremental improvements or to explore novel changes. The refusal is to reset their understanding of their competitive landscape and to accept that their industries are fundamentally at risk. They’re fine with turning money into ideas (R&D), but not turning ideas into money (innovation).

So please, stop calling your company “innovative”. Yes, you make incremental improvements to your products. Yes, you invest in R&D. But at the end of the day, if you’re unwilling to shift adapt your core organizational values based on societal, social, and technological changes, you’re just fooling yourself. Until your organization is willing to rethink its relationship with its customers, reimagine what the future will look like, and reset its view of the industry it competes in, it’s not really innovative.

If you’re really committed to innovation, don’t just tell us about it. Live it.

Needless to say, the process of preparing and presenting to the internal IC team had me pretty primed to talk about what Design Thinking is and what it means in the context of Idea Couture, business, and innovation. So I was pretty happy when I went on Quora last night and came across this great question:

Part of the challenge in answering that question is that there is no single definition of Design Thinking. From what I’ve seen and what I practice, there are four points of view on what Design Thinking really is. Each have a different connection to innovation.

1. Design thinking is a person is a person who is capable of forming ideas through abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning implies knowing throughout intuition (no formal proof), which is effectively a new thought. Innovation through new ways of thinking.
2. Design thinking is a human centered way of viewing the world. By trying to solve problems through gaining insights around people’s needs, you’re creating new perspectives which lead to new opportunities for innovation. Innovation through new perspectives.
3. Design thinking is a series of methods allow designers better communicate ideas. Completely new concepts are difficult for most people to grasp, so using a designer’s lens on communications improves understanding. The communication of innovation.
4. Design thinking is a series of steps to guide the innovation process. It’s the meta name given to the activities involved in creating a new idea. Design thinking is innovation.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Just tired of hearing the term “Design Thinking”? Let me know.

Also, here’s a copy of the internal presentation if you’re interested.

It’s hard to dispute that voting platforms have quickly become one of the most popular tools in the cause marketing playbook. As with any new marketing method, these platforms have been a lightning rod for criticism. This week alone, I’ve had several healthy debates with thought leaders in the CSR and Social Innovation space about their value for communities:

“They waste precious, limited charity resources”,

“They tick off the donor list”,

“They celebrate popularity, not good ideas”,

“etc…”

Yesterday morning, I was up at 5AM to attend the Year 2 Aviva Community Fund winner’s event. After another year overseeing Canada’s most successful social media and cause marketing platform, I felt inspired to share a bit more of an insiders view of how these competitions work, and why they are an extremely good thing for causes when used strategically. I have no doubt, there’ll be plenty of disagreement regarding my point of view, as I already hear it on a daily basis. I look forward to some healthy discussion.

“only a few ideas win, everyone else loses”

As someone who curates competitions and sits on the board of a charity, I’ll be the first to say that the allure of a big pot of money is seductive. You’ll be hard pressed to find an organization or school that’s overfunded, so inevitably some organizations are disappointed or angry  when they don’t win.

But to look at these competitions with the singular view that the prize is the only outcome is extremely short sighted. Well designed cause marketing platforms are marketing assets that can leveraged by both sides of the equation. Some organizations are disappointed by the outcome, while others recognize the opportunity that is presented to them the whole way through.

These programs are about marketing, and that marketing is symbiotic. Yes, brands like Aviva and Pepsi win by associating themselves with causes. But charities also win trough promoting their needs through national platforms. Having spoken to many, many, many organizations who have participated in these types of programs, far more ideas get funded than the ones announced. Smart causes use these marketing platforms as a way to bring their needs to national attention. They organize themselves to “win”, whether they get funding through the program or not, by using these programs to educate interested individuals about their needs.

Most importantly, they build a new and expanded audience, which in and of itself is an asset asset.

“they’re just a popularity contest”

Voting, and especially social media voting in a cause marketing platform, is a popularity contest. That popularity brings people to a branded site which creates exposure to the contest organizer. The formula is pretty standard there. Ultimately, a degree of any competition has to do with the ability to rally support – be it a student council vote, or voting in the AMEX Member’s Project. Inherently there’s a hope that a democratic process like voting yields a valid outcome.

The way that I view the Aviva Community Fund is in two phases – the marketing phase, and the cause phase. The marketing phase (up to selecting the finalists) is 100% participant chosen, and 100% the result of an idea’s ability to rally voters. The cause side (judging) narrows the finalist ideas to the winners using detailed criteria designed to identify the most deserving projects with the biggest impact. I reiterate, we find the best idea from a sub-set selected based on popularity. The most deserving ideas get funding.

One final thing to remember. If there’s issue with the popularity contest, we can’t forget that the dollars for programs like this come directly from the marketing budget and not a CSR budget. The result is money (which would normally go to advertising) being directed to causes.

I sure can tolerate a popularity contest if it means $1,000,000 goes to deserving ideas.

“they take a lot of work to enter”

The rationale that these competitions are a distraction is an uninformed rationale for why these platforms are bad.

First, from a pure mechanics perspective, user experience practitioners design these competitions to be as easy to use as possible. For example, in designing our idea submission forms, we deliberately made our forms as simple as possible with the recognition that good ideas come from anywhere. That means our submission process needs to be as easy for a major not for profit to complete as it is for a grade 2 student. To enter the first round of our competition, we’re talking maybe 15 minutes. Add in voting, creating a few images, and shooting a video, maybe 2 hours? The mechanics alone are a negligible distraction.

In the case of the community fund, we also built in a philosophy of progressive disclosure into our submission process, which basically means that the further you progress into the competition, the more we ask you. We needed to balance the needed for judges to evaluate an idea with the amount of effort required to enter the competition, and we didn’t want people to go through the effort of developing complex budgets until they saw the light at the end of the tunnel.

“they’re a distraction to the focus”

Aside from the mechanics, what people are probably really upset about is the effort it takeout to collect come up with ideas, market the idea, and collect votes.

On the ideas creation, I would say it’s the role of charities and community leaders to come up with new and innovative projects to help people. If anything (and I’ve been told this), we’re giving organizations a reason to think about how they can help serve their communities better. I think that’s a pretty positive outcome.

On the marketing side, perhaps one of the best outcomes of these programs is their ability to act as an educational tool. On one hand, we embed marketing education in all of our program design to help causes capture as large an audience as possible. On the other hand, idea creators and supporters are learning about how to market their charities in the age of digital media. I know from first hand conversations that participation in the Aviva Community Fund, for example, has taught a number of organizations about how to use social media.

On the votes point, see my next section.

“we’re draining our database”

If you have issues with these programs creating a distraction, perhaps you should reframe your thinking a little. Maybe a distraction is exactly what these organizations need in order to realize the level of commitment, passion, and interest out there by people who don’t have the means or desire to respond to the one tired message in the marketplace, “Donate now”.

While some people struggle with the burden of the vote, I actually think it’s refreshing to hear charities ask for help in a way other than from my pocket. Voting competitions allow charities to tell a different story, and to get people to act in a different way. Since there is less commitment in giving a vote than a dollar, I think (and have heard) that these voting platforms allow smart organizations to collect new donors as opposed to disenfranchise them. And meanwhile, any smart marketer knows to segment their database.

Voting platforms are an opportunity, and an option

Maximizing the potential of voting-based cause marketing platforms is hard work. I doubt anyone, including this year’s amazing Aviva Community Fund winners, would disagree. But to criticize them without assessing why they exist or what their potential is can be a really short sighted perspective. While it’s easy to make sweeping generalizations, if you actually take the time to analyze how some communities take advantage of these opportunities, you’ll see that they benefit as much as the brand putting on the competition.

And of course, if I still haven’t convinced you, just don’t enter. But I promise you, you’re missing out on a huge opportunity.

That’s a big question that I don’t think the world of crowdsourcing community has quite figured out yet.

Cause Marketing is Not CSR

Here’s an important level-set in the discussion of these platforms – branded cause competitions are a form of cause marketing, not CSR (corporate social responsibility). The difference is small but significant. Cause marketing is a marketing relationship where there is an expected brand benefit, where CSR plays in the realm of philanthropy. In cause marketing, it’s corporate first, cause second.

One of the big debates against these programs is that, “If these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they shouldn’t make people work for it”. This is a classic example of confusing CSR with CM. I couldn’t disagree more. Cause marketing is not a replacement for existing CSR programs. These programs aren’t just a re-allocation of philanthropy dollars, they result of net new new dollars being contributed to causes from a marketing budget. There needs to be positive brand return, or the program will disappear. So if a little charity work means a lot of new dollars being made available for causes, I’m all for it.

So why does CSR vs. CM matter?

Beyond executing against a program’s rules, cause marketing initiatives have no real responsibility to go any further than giving away a stated prize. Community idea competitions usually result in hundreds or even thousands of new ideas being submitted. Some of those ideas are unnecessary or impossible to implement, but many others represent a bottom up voice for what’s needed in the community.Whether intentional or not, these platforms have given a voice to ignored communities, marginalized populations, and scrappy causes. They have the ability to bring attention to there needs in ways that used to be reserved for behemoth not for profit organizations.

But as with any competition, there are winners and losers. Cause marketing idea competitions make plenty of ideas come to fruition. As a marketing competition, it can’t be reasonably expected that the marketer take responsibility to manage and push forward every idea submitted. In the case of the Aviva Community Fund, we partnered with Benevity in 2010 so that registered charities can use the platform to connect donations as a way to migrate from CM to CSR platform and to let the ideas live on. But we can’t expect that a soft drink or credit card company follow up on every idea – it’s not good business.

The result is that many important ideas get forgotten once the next round of voting starts.

Government and community idea competitions
Idea platforms showcase community needs. So nothing could be worse than a community need being flagged in a competition, then going unfulfilled or un-evaluated. The crowdsourcing competition model uses voting as a way of making idea evaluation manageable, but just because an idea isn’t popular or because the idea creator doesn’t know how to use facebook doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea.

In a previous blog post about classifying crowdsourcing platforms, I introduced a concept called Crowdsourcing Researching -using crowdsourcing as a tool to articulate previously unknown or unmet needs. These ideas platforms are an amazing Crowdsourcing Researching tool to understand community needs. FixMyStreet is a great example of how this can work in government, and with many municipalities moving towards philosophies of open government, listing to the crowd has to be a vertical of activity.

My hope (dream, aspiration) is that in the long term, these competitions find ways to formalize their relationships with government as a way to ensure that all ideas receive the attention they deserve. For the winning ideas, they get a fast-track to implementation under the Cause Marketing program rules. But for all other ideas, they find a formalized way to be reviewed by government agencies to ensure there’s an opportunity for implementation. Idealized, yes I know, but important.

What are your thoughts?

Having spent the better part of the last two years working on the  Aviva Community Fund and MIT Global Challenge platforms, and working on ways to see ideas live beyond the length of a competition, I can tell you that this new form of bottom up innovation represents an important evolution in how problems are solved in the world. And as long as they continue to be brand building powerhouses, private organizations are going to continue to collect important community ideas. What do you think should happen to private competition ideas?

Organizations are increasingly turning to open innovation platforms as their source of innovation.

Open innovation platforms (or crowdsourcing platforms) are a way to involve consumers in the process of innovation. Here at IC, we have built examples pretty amazing open innovation platforms – the Aviva Community fund and the MIT Ideas Challenge that are helping prove the case. You can also check out Open Innovators for dozens of other examples of programs that work. As our fearless leader Idris Mootee recently wrote in his article What you don’t know about Crowdsourcing and why they often fail, it’s not a silver bullet for innovation. But when used in a defined way as part of the research and development process, they can be quite successful.

Solving the worlds problems one 2×2 at a time

A lot of organizations struggle to wrap their heads around open innovation platforms because they toil with their purpose in the innovation cycle – what is the role of the platform within the innovation pipeline. With that in mind, I’ve spent a bit of time sketching an organizational principal for open innovation platforms. Obviously an organization can choose to involve external parties at any point in the innovation process – but the emphasis of this thinking is focused on what would be classically viewed as research through development (as opposed to the commercialization).

Do you have a problem? X AXIS
The first decision criteria is “Is there a defined problem”.

On one side of the equation, many organizations are submitting or asking explicit questions to the audience for solving – they have a defined problem to be solved. For example, Innovation Exchange solicits “Challenges” (specific problems to solve) from major corporations. I call this “innovation inspired by the business” – the key driver of creativity is based off of a fundamental business-side need or problem.

On the other side, some organizations just want good ideas that align with their brands – they have undefined problems and look to the crowd to both explicitly state challenges and opportunities. In short, they hope the crowd both provides both self identifies the problem and articulates a solution to the problem. An example of this would be the over-mentioned “my Starbucks ideas”. I call this “inspired by invention”, as it often manifests itself through the creative ingenuity of the crowd. It could just as easily be called “Innovation inspired by needs”.

When can the crowd play? Y AXIS
The second decision criteria is “When do you involve the crowd”?

On one side of the equation, organizations involve external participants early in the innovation process. Involving customers early results in raw, often messy ideas that may or not reflect any possible reality. I think of this as a platform for actively soliciting feedback for “opportunity collection” because there tend to be a lot of undefined directions that can be pursued or that can inspire lateral thinking.

On the other side, organizations can involve participants late in the innovation process. At this point, organizations are often looking for full concepts, designs, or solutions that represent a full solution to a problem. Examples of this would be Google’s Lunar Prize, where the criteria for winning is to “successfully land a privately funded craft on the lunar surface and survive long enough to complete the mission goals of roaming about the lunar surface for at least 500 meters and sending a defined data package, called a “Mooncast”, back to Earth.”. This is an example of “solution collection” – getting many external participants to come up with multiple, well articulated solutions.

The quadrants of organization-led open innovation platforms

Based on this model for understanding open innovation platforms, there are four primary opportunities for organizations to use open innovation platforms to drive the innovation process internally.

Defined Problem + Early Involvement = Crowdstorming. Articulating a specific problem to consumers and asking for many raw responses. This is pretty much like a massive brainstorm, and works as a way to stock the innovation pipeline early. Output: Lots of raw solutions to a specific problem with varying quality. Example: Fiat Mio

Undefined Problem + Early Involvement = Researching. Ask consumers to come up with solutions to undefined problems. The real value here is the articulation of previously unknown or unmet needs, collected through the initial articulation of customer problems used as a rationale for the solution. Output: Explanation or justification of previously unarticulated consumer challenges or needs with a small number of solutions of varying quality. Example: Dell Idea Storm

Defined Problem + Late Involvement = Prototyping. When you involve the consumer at this point, you’re really asking for a specific designed solution to a problem. Depending on how late in the innovation process they are involved, the output can be anything from concept sketches to fully-functioning prototypes. Output: Depending on how late the challenge is put to the crowd, and how defined the solution must be, expect a small number of solutions. Example: Supdaroo or one of my favorite sites, threadless.

Undefined Problem + Late Involvement = Adopting. Some organizations choose to build idea orphanages, allowing external participants to submit fully thought-out and conceptualized product concepts that may or may not align with their interests. Would-be inventors can submit their concepts with the hope of the organization moving on their idea. Output: Well thought out ideas that may or may not be relevant to the organization. Example: Lego Design By Me

Yes, no maybe so?

Obviously open innovation platforms differ in terms of where they play in an organization’s innovation cycle. In practice, each of the quadrants of the open innovation platform classification isn’t mutually exclusive. But in terms of understanding where their value lies, I think it’s a good starting point.

So what do you think? Agree with the classification? Have any recommendations on how to make it better? Have any great examples of crowdsourcing applications that I’ve missed? Join the comment thread and let me know. Also, if you’re interested in Open Innovation and the Virtuous Cycle, be sure to read Henry Chesbrough’s epic book Open Innovation.

I’m sure you’ve been put in the situation before. An RFP or a project arrives on your desk that just doesn’t feel right. Maybe it doesn’t take into account fundamental human behaviours. Maybe it ignores market realities. Or maybe it’s just trying to solve a tactical problem rather than dealing with what really needs to be solved. Either way, it creates an uncomfortable situation – are you a going to tell the client they’re wrong, or are you going to do what’s asked.

The NAA Interactive Briefing

In the interactive division of the National Advertising Awards, entrants were asked to submit an innovative creative solution to the the following business problem for Sympatico.ca:

“Drive adoption of Sympatico.ca’s various assets by convincing our target audience to make Sympatico.ca or one of its sister sites, like Best Health or Auto, their homepage. The site is currently competing with U.S. and international sites like MSN and Yahoo.” (for more details, download the full briefing here)

Of the teams that responded to the challenge, half developed creative advertising campaigns consisting of a mix of traditional and social media forms. Some came up with clever campaign concepts that successfully focused on strong calls to action that supported the stated business objectives.

And the other half of the entrants told us the portal model is dead.

Dear Client, You are Wrong.

Now I don’t want this to turn into a debate around whether portal models like Sympatico.ca are dead. What I do want to ask is, if you’re put into a situation where you don’t believe that a brief is responding to the right thing for a client’s business, do you follow it?

In the past, I’ve been on both sides of the coin before. Perhaps it comes down to the difference between taking client work to get paid and taking client work to make a difference. Here’s a quick summary of your likely outcomes:

Partners Vs. Working for Approvals

A lot of agencies don’t break the brief. The hope is that once the ability to execute is proven, there will be the opportunity to show strategic worth on something else. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach to design. This is working for approvals instead of working to achieve a result.

The benefits of not working at an agency is you’re not boxed into agency scenarios. As a strategic innovation and experience design firm, clients come to us with a recognition (and expectation) that in order to strategically differentiate, you may need to go outside your comfort zone. Questioning long-standing assumptions is part of our value proposition, and as such, every brief gets broken to some extent. If your job is to solve problems, then articulating the right problem is step number one. It’s the difference between a partnership and a paycheck.

Now obviously not everybody has the opportunity to work like we do. So what do you do when the brief is wrong?

From April 7th – April 10th, I’ll be attending and speaking at the eMetrics Marketing Optimization conference in Toronto. These are my thoughts, feelings, and (hopefully) epiphanies from interacting with the world’s best and brightest in the world of digital measurement.

WEDNESDAY – APRIL 7TH – 9:35 PM

eMetrics day one. First off, the conference director Andrea Hadley did an awesome job putting things together. As with any conference, the true direction of thought leadership happens over dinner (not on stage), and sadly my inbox had to take priority this evening. So at this point, all I can offer is a quick rundown and a few opinions from the first sessions of the day.

Kickoff

After Andrea gave a quick intro, Alex Langshur, President of the Web Analytics Association, talked a bit about the WAA. A good summary highlighting the emphasis on community beyond Web Analytics Wednesday, legislation of privacy information, and education. I’m a big supporter of the WAA’s agenda, so it was a great way to start.

NHL.COM

Theresa Locklear, the director of Web Analytics & Customer Insight talked extensively about the reporting practices of the NHL. I was impressed by their degree of transparency – sharing numbers, talking about real case studies (albeit, mostly wins), and highlighting a few examples of real life optimization success. She also showcased an analyst team bigger than many (five to be exact). Clearly the NHL sees value in data driven decision making.

But at the same time, something kept popping into my head. There were quite a few examples of web optimization in the presentation, and when I asked about testing, they said they did none. In my mind, that means the decisions are largely left up to heuristics. Can’t black box that.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative panel

I’ll be honest – I caught what I could of the panel. But I’m trying to buy a house right now in Toronto, and in this market when the phone rings, you answer. But I did see enough to have a few observations.

A. I’m not sure I fully understand the logic behind having five people with (or formerly with) “Analyst” or “Consultant” in their title debating the merits or uses of qualitative data. I think we lost an important perspective by having no pure qualitative researchers representing their field. Back in my old web days, I used to think anyone could do qualitative research. When you work with PHD’s in the subject, people trained in observing and interpreting human behaviour, you recognize that there’s a difference. A few discussions at the WAA Mixer after the session reinforced my thinking.

B. When did “Quantitative” and “Business” become interchangeable? As the discussion progressed, it felt like a bit of a B-School / D-School discussion – not in terms of one versus the other, but in terms of purpose. Research is used for a lot of reasons, and yes, in some situations one is preferred over the other. Tonight felt rigid, like every situation was an either/or but not a both. Marko Hurst was the exception who I thought represented both disciplines well.

So tonight was largely a technology, mathematics, and alienation free evening. A positive in my eMetrics journey. Looking forward to a big day tomorrow.

WEDNESDAY – APRIL 7TH – 7:54 AM.

Today is my start of the eMetrics Marketing Optimization conference in Toronto, an event I am simultaneously looking forward to and dreading. On the “looking forward to” side, there are many, many awesome speakers presenting. From Avinash Kaushik to Jim Novo (a hero in the space) to my always entertaining former co-conspirator Christopher Berry, it’s an all star lineup.  I’ll also be presenting the numbers behind the Aviva Community Fund, a marquee project for Idea Couture in the social innovation and cause marketing space.

On the “dread” side, I can’t help but feel this conference is going to be the end of my formal association with the digital measurement community.I’ve been a practicing Web Analytics analyst for about 6 years now – an old guy in digital terms. But even in that space, I always felt a bit like an outsider as a user experience strategist (researcher) first and an analytics practitioner second – a divide that is becoming an argument of validation versus prediction.

Meanwhile, many of the dominant conversations are distant and foreign. As Web Analysts, we focus our efforts on what will derivate the largest impact. Usually that means optimizing the user experience around the highest revenue-generating opportunities. Rather than focus our efforts on any one individual, we analyze patterns because it’s a better use of our time. But it seems as though we’ve lost our own way – now focusing in on technologies and methods designed to derive actionable results around strategies that most clients can’t afford to build in the first place.

Over the past six years, I’ve seen an industry migrate technologies, define definitions, formalize education, and find its way onto the book shelves of many of my friends (a big win when you feel you’re in a niche space). Our current direction has me concerned that everything’s about to get effed up.

For the rich few, yes, these new methods and technologies can (and will) create a competitive advantage. But for the poor greater, this only further creates barriers to entry – introducing alienating languages, foreign skills, and high costs. I’ve heard many people in this industry talk about how wonderful Web analytics is because it’s accessible to marketers and (with a little help), it can be understood all the way to the top. Because of this, there is power in our recommendations.

While I can’t be certain yet, I get the sense that digital measurement is going the way of the great black box – a fifedome for a chosen few to understand. It’s also focusing on things most clients simply can’t resource against. While, yes, the decision support may push us towards greater accuracy, we can’t forget the politics behind all of this. I’ve been in enough Marketing Business Intelligence briefings to know (whether right or wrong) who makes the final decisions. In the world of mixed quantitative and qualitative data, whoever tells the best story usually gets the most attention. Black boxes don’t make for good stories.

If you ever visit MIT, you’ll see that their floors look antiquated and cracked. It’s because, in many cases, the hallways of MIT were  where the building materials and construction methods were first developed, and they want every student to now, and remember the origins.

Evolution and revolution are both needed, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore where we came from. I’m hoping as the conference moves forward I see a little humanization in the midst of our attempts to automate human behaviour.