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.

The Clever Little Bag by Puma

Recently Puma announced the Clever Little Bag that will reduce their environmental footprint. As a shoelover, a shoebox is not only an environment problem but a space saving issue that involves all shoelovers who live in small condos. The Clever Little Bag not only solves the bigger problem at hand such as sustainability and carbon emission but it also reduces cluster in everyone’s home.

The R3 Green experiment by Petz Scholtus and Sergio Carratala

I stumbled upon this article on ReadyMade magazine and its about a Spanish couple in Barcelona who turned their own home into a green experiment. The couple used as many recycled materials as they could to create a carbon neutral home that follows the 3R principles: Reduce, Recycle, Respect. One of the coolest things in their apartment is the Wine Crate cabinets in the kitchen. You can follow the instruction and make one yourself with this check list.

Obsessive Consumption by Kate Bingaman-Burt
Obsessive Consumption started out as an art project by Kate Bingaman and it’s a project that I have been following for a few years. Kate, the artist, started out by creating a personal record of what she buys everyday and she draws out credit card statements for every single item she buys. The collection of drawings is getting bigger and bigger and she has finally started a blog to document this project. Why is this project green you ask? The drawings of what we consume serve as a reminder for all of us to think twice about how much we consume on this planet and by looking at the colourful drawings of these consumptions you are able to reflect on your own. When everyone is doing it- that’s a good starting point for reducing waste.

Happy Earth Day!

Multi-touch interfaces like Apple’s iPhone, Microsoft’s Surface and Perceptive Pixel’s Multi-Touch Wall have enabled a wave of new applications, products, services and consumer experiences- they are today’s market standards. By pushing beyond these interfaces as well as forthcoming variations of tactile feedback and gestural interfaces into a more affective domain, the emergence of what we might call ‘feelback’ systems will provide transformative opportunities for innovation in a variety of computing, communication and interaction contexts.

Touch before feel

Before considering what a ‘feelback’ system might be it is important to locate where Touch Sensation has put us so far. Touch Sensation refers to the tactile, finger-to-screen input or output modality that is now a common feature on many devices. Apple’s iPhone and CNN’s Magic Wall stand out as two of the more notable (read: popular/known) touch devices; but, as Bill Buxton points out, both are products of long innovation cycles. The Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research has compiled an impressive list of innovations beginning with the keyboard and including the 1972 Plato IV, the 1981 Tactile Array Sensor for Robotics, and the 1992 Simon from IBM and Bell South- whose design DNA have enabled dudes to make their phones fart and Wolf Blitzer to physically shape the news world. But Touch Sensation is more than technology.

It’s natural. An interactive modality based on relatively simple and commonly understood gestures. Touch removes a layer of the ‘machine’- it brings users closer to the experience of being in control. The ability to touch, drag, pinch, stir, spin, zoom, direct or manipulate an action without using a button, mouse, stylus, pen or other device enables a new, seemingly more direct and almost ‘magical’ form of control.  We like this. To touch with our fingers brings us into a more intimate relationship with our content, information and experiences.

It’s performative. Touch introduces a new set of skills to discover, develop, master and demonstrate to both the world and to others. Like a gamer playing on the cutting edge of information and world affairs by shaping, shaving and sculpting events, TV audiences are captivated by Wolf Blitzer demonstrating his mastery over the interface technology of CNN’s Magic Wall. In similar fashion, the iPhone enables mastery and performance in more intimate ways; scrolling for a contact, pinching and gesturing to scale photos and zooming in on maps have evolved into new and complex forms of social display.

It’s a disruptive, competitive differentiator. Among consumers, touch screen devices elicit greater perceived value. The iPhone oozes a cool factor that makes even the latest non-touch devices seem old fashioned, and Apple has capitalized on defining this new standard of experience and expectation. To the average consumer, touch is a recognizable innovation that demonstrates ‘progress’ and exemplifies a higher level of sophistication on the part of brands that employ it.

Part 2 coming soon- Steps towards feeling

While the ticket prices are predicted to go lower than their current price tag of $200K, it is foreseen that the general public will soon have the opportunity enjoy the experience of weightlessness. Getting the public engaged and updated on the progresses however, is certainly one challenge that needs to be addressed now. The role of education in doing so is extremely important in order to prepare the next generation for the future’s new travel destinations. If people and the private sector are going to play key roles in the future of the private space travel, it is crucial for them to be well informed about the hurdles and the benefits of the space travel. This will in turn lead to better engagement by a larger population and will culture a new generation of entrepreneurs and innovators who understand the challenges and complexities of living and working in this new environment. 

Credit: Virgin Galactic

I recently attended the Next generation of Suborbital Researchers Conference in Boulder, Colorado and I’d like to share some observations that I found very interesting. Firstly, the involvement of the female researchers in this conference, was notably higher than any other professional conference I had been to in the field of space studies. It appears that there is going to be a shift in the male dominated field of Aerospace.

There was also a tremendous amount of attention and time centered around education and the future of suborbital flights. Teachers, professors, and government workers seem to all agree that the K-12 and university institutions need to be more involved in the future of suborbital research and it is the space sector’s role to be more open with their present material, future plans, as well as be willing to get involved in all layers and stages of the education.

T use of social networking sites to publish and engage people was one of the great ideas that was discussed in the conference. The initiative to involve the public by use of social media was brought to out attention by the Planetary Institute- an organization that runs different projects to involve public in their missions. 

An example of this is the mars express visual monitoring camera. European Space Agency’s operation center began a blog in August 2008 to invite the public to process the images received by the camera. They asked the public to take the raw images and process them further. What was important in this initiative though, was the trust created between the space institutions and the general public. It was the first time that data was provided to public as well as the first time public involvement was used in the creation of the final work. Within a few hours someone responded to the post and sent this image back:

This view of Venus is processed by an amateur, Mattias Malmer from 78 Mariner 10 frames captured through orange and ultraviolet filters.

On October 2008 Richaerd Garriet, the game designer and entrepreneur took his first flight with the Space Adventure to the ISS for his 12-day travel in space. Since the flight, Garriet has been giving talks and lectures in number of conferences and has shared his journey to researchers and people in industry. One great innovation by him is the Sports in Space website where people can play different sports on different planets. The interactive design of the game is a great tool to teach people how certain actions vary under different gravitational conditions. 

http://www.challenger.org/sportsinspace/

Whether you dream about playing football in space or simply gaze at the blue planet from the window of the spaceship, the sky is the limit. So, buckle your seatbelt, we’re on the root to an exciting time in the history of flight.

References:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/virgin-galactic/

http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/imaging/data.html

http://www.challenger.org/sportsinspace/

For the last several weeks, much has been written about Rupert Murdoch’s plans to de-index from Google and put up pay walls for News Corp’s digital media properties.

Variety.com (the Hollywood trade publication) has also announced that it will revert back to erecting a pay wall for its content.  Variety.com had this model in place as recently as 2007 when it decided a pay wall didn’t work.  Well, I guess that was then…

And now, we have three major publishing houses announcing that they will hold back e-book versions of some titles, making them available several weeks to several months after the initial launch of the hardcover.  Hey, movie studios have been doing that for years, right?

Finally, the major music labels have announced that they will cease the production of all recordings, digital or otherwise, and force people to attend live concerts if they want to hear their favorite music.

OK, I made that last one up.

Where’s the innovation?  It’s undeniable that traditional media companies are under a lot of pressure to hold on to their revenues.  Some are fighting for survival.  But shouldn’t such circumstances spark innovation?

Let’s look at publishers’ plans for holding back e-book versions of some of their titles.  Is it really a good idea to force consumers to buy hardcover versions when so many of them have already demonstrated that they want e-books?  Is it really a good idea to artificially prop up the value of a hardcover, at the expense of making an e-book a less attractive product, when the trend seems to clearly favor e-books going forward?

Insights into customer needs (e.g. people want to buy, carry around, and read books conveniently) and foresight into the evolving market (e.g. e-book market is growing very quickly; and every electronics manufacturer and their cousin are readying better, faster, do-more e-readers) should be driving innovations at these media companies.

Instead, they seem to be gripped by the fear that consumers who grow accustomed to paying $9.99 for an e-book won’t want to pay $25 for a hardcover.  That may be true.  But what exactly are they hoping will happen?  That consumers who have already invested in an e-reader, and who have already been enjoying e-books, will be willing to pay a premium for a product they don’t really want?   Or that, by making e-books less attractive for consumers, they will simply forget about them and return to buying big, heavy hardcover books?

The ground around media companies is definitely shifting.  The environment is ripe for innovation.  Some will survive.  Some will not.  But I think the ones that will thrive will be the ones that innovate.  I just haven’t seen any shining examples of innovation from the incumbents lately.

What do you think?  Am I glossing over any innovations from the big media companies?

Traditionally chairs have tried to capture the user and hold them in a certain position.  While in theory this could work if the chair would be tailored to the user and they were not to move from the optimal position, in reality, this is far from the case.  According to research, it is in fact far more beneficial to go with the flow so to speak, and encourage the user to move frequently.  This movement gives the back muscles time to recouperate and lessens the long term impact of any potential damage.  What the ‘Generation’ accepts is that users want to move around and be in various sitting positions, and helps them to move between them which is a commendable step in the right direction for such a big name in the chair game.  While it isn’t optimal in that it can help users facilitate extremely poor postures for lengthy periods of time, there are always going to be missteps along the way of such a brazen and bold direction.

Where the ‘Generation’ truly succeeds is in delivering the user an experience that they are able to really make their own.  By being able to build the chair with the components that are desired, and then by further enable the user to sit in so many different positions, the chair begins to feel as though it was made specifically for you.  Even the website address, www.sithowyouwant.com is indicative of the emphasis that Knoll put on creating a product that embodies a tailored user experience.  All of the elements of the chair are easily adjustable to fit the user quickly and easily, and the materials chosen allow for flexibility that has rarely been seen in such a traditional work environment.  By browsing their website, under the demos (and then video demos), you can quickly grasp the idea and rational behind the ‘Generation’.  The shape and materials, as well as potential colorways are all very thoroughly thought out.

While this chair will not likely dethrone the Herman Miller Aeron Chair anytime in the near future as the standard by which all office seating is judged, it is able to make clear it’s value in different areas than the Aeron Chair.  It doesn’t attempt to overtake the Herman Miller offering by doing the same things, but tries to take a radically different approach, and is largely successful.   Such a dynamic and different take on an often stagnant and traditional market segment should be applauded if we are to hope for more innovations.

With few dedicated bike lanes, sparse parking facilities and a passive aggressive car vs. bike culture relationship, it’s amazing that people in this city even cycle at all. But we do – and particularly at Idea Couture, we have strong group of dedicated cyclists. So – for all the devoted cyclists out there who have cursed when unable to find a decent parking spot for one’s 2-wheeler, this innovation from Japan will delight in its ingenuity – solving practical problems such as theft, space constraints and weather.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/nov/05/bicycles-japan-bike-tree

How do you see the future of multitouch heading? Something more along these lines? I’ve personally found touch desktop all-in-ones to be somewhat pointless, and the only time I use the touch feature is for switching my media.

Check out this amazing video, you’ll be amazed.

10/GUI from C. Miller on Vimeo.

Here it is: my crazy summer project to reinvent desktop human-computer interaction.

This video examines the benefits and limitations inherent in current mouse-based and window-oriented interfaces, the problems facing other potential solutions, and visualizes my proposal for a completely new way of interacting with desktop computers.

There’s more information at http://10gui.com .

The lines between science fiction and the world as we know it are certainly blurring. While we don’t have autonomous machines walking among us today, the technologies in both robotics and artificial intelligence are progressing significantly. We may not have cloning machines, but 3D printers have become an essential tool in the prototyping of new products. And while we’re a long ways away from the ubiquitous computing vision presented in Wall-E, where people live their lives with no awareness of the digital environment they live in, our behavioral dependency on ubicomp, even now, makes it seem as though Pixar’s view of the future is a possibility (albeit, a bleak one).

Ubicomp is not Black or White

Ubicomp is a vision of the future. But if we think of it as all or nothing, we’re sure to miss out on an incredible transformation of society. The ubicomp vision presented in films, academic literature and Microsoft promotional videos seems to be an “all” – everything, every object, contains computing capabilities and works perfectly in unison with its environment.

If we accept that a full-fledged, overnight transformation to a ubicomp society is never going to happen, then we can recognize that we’ve already taken several giant steps towards integrating ubiquitous computing elements into our every day lives. Behaviorally, we’re already well on our way. We’re living in the gray.

Ubicomp & You

Small ubicomp interactions have been around for quite some time. You probably don’t realize it (that’s sort of the point), but there are hundreds of examples of invisible interactions with sensing, inferring, data transferring machines that have made their way into our lives already. From sensors at stop lights that help manage traffic flows to weight sensors in elevators to the automatic shutoff switches that turn off your iron when you’ve let it idle for too long , simple, single function computing has been making our lives safer and more efficient for over a decade. However, most of the examples we have from the past decade represent little technically-enabled blips in our life line that are the ubicomp equivilent of dipping our toes in the water.

This is not the future but the past.

These days, ubicomp has taken on a significantly more important role in product design, serving as a key form of product differentiation. In fact, it’s difficult to find a category of products that hasn’t in some way been “upgraded” with new computational capabilities.  And with this new form of invention, streams of products are  seamlessly replacing the skills humans have relied upon for thousands of years. It’s no longer about efficiency and safety, but about enhancing (supporting, replacing) skills.

Stop light sensors change the rules of how the world works, today’s ubicomp is changing who we are as a species.

Case  1. GPS & Where We’re Situated

For thousands of years, humans have relied on instincts, heuristics and tools to tell us where we are. Maps & compasses required a distinct set of skills, and in their absence, we relied on the stars to direct our path. Fast forward to today, and it’s difficult to find a car that doesn’t contain a GPS system. Humans have embraced the GPS technology so fully that there are literally hundreds of online stories of “car meets lake,” when enthusiastic GPS owners trus their electronic maps over their own visual skills. This isn’t an evolution of the tool. GPS is a complete overhaul of a skill (and clearly before the technology is perfected). We’re always somewhere, and ubiquitous is fulfilling the need of telling us where that is.

Case  2. Ambient Communications & What We’re Doing

While GPS is causing us to lose a skill, the ability to push status notifications to social networking sites has created a new behavior – updating. The desire to feel connected by letting the world know what where why and how we’re doing everything has created a consumer-side demand for devices that facilitate that process. Mobile phones, often considered the gateway to ubiquitous computing, are currently the tool of choice to provide these updates, but with examples of ovens that automatically update Twitter when fresh bread comes out of the oven, input sensors that update facebook when a baby kicks in the woumb, and shoes connected to communities of runners, there are plenty of examples of trigger-based communications that automatically inform the world when something worth mentioning happens. The demand for updating has demonstrated an interest in ubiquitous computing products that do the work for us. Real time is the new status symbol.

Case  3. There’s an App for That!

Over the past year, Apple has successfully popularized the catch phrase there’s an app for that. Since the iPhone app store’s introduction, more than 2 billion apps have been downloaded (with a half billion downloads in the last quarter alone). The total number of apps in the store currently exceeds 85,000. With an app for every scenario, there is a clear, consumer driven demand for computing to take a more prominent role in our lives. People are appifying every aspect of their lives, relying on a form of ubicomp to do everything for them, from telling them the whether when they’re already outside to calculating their tips to keeping them entertained on the street car in to work.

What’s clear from all of these examples is that there is a consumer driven demand for ubiquitous computing in our lives. While we may not be living out Pixar’s fantasy of the future, the foundation of who we and what we do is changing based on the availability of ubiquitous computing. I’m not here to convince you that it’s a good or a bad thing (I have my own opinions). But no matter how you feel about it, our evolution to a ubicomp world is happening.

Look around a bit and I’m sure you’ll notice.

San Francisco-based designer, Mitchell Heinrich has created a new form of street art using scent.

Since early human cave wall painting, graffiti has remained largely unchanged as a medium.  The style, tools and purpose have evolved over the centuries, but still nobody has successfully broken free of its visual nature. From this line of thinking “smell graffiti” has emerged.  Harnessing modern chemistry and appropriating technology invented for industrial purposes, Heinrich is pursuing new ways to make a statement in a public space that delivers a graffiti experience for the nose rather than the eyes.

Scent is a very evocative medium—it is interpreted by the human limbic system which is very closely tied to emotion and memory. This fact has led Heinrich to believe that interacting with people using scent can potentially be a much more powerful medium than paint since people experiencing it can’t help but react to it. The goal of his scented street art project is to realize the potential of smell as art and to explore different ways of using it to interact with people.

For the scent compounds,  Heinrich uses essential oils, mass-produced esters, isopropyl alcohol as a thinner, and refillable atomizing spray cans, which can be pressurized with a standard Schrader valve and an air compressor or bicycle tire pump.

Heinrich introduces incongruous smells such as dirt and grass into urban spaces. With the aim of uplifting and embellishing repellent spaces, he believes scent can be an artistic, if only temporal force—the aroma usually dissipates in 20 minutes to an hour.

Bakeries have long used scent to coax customers into their stores, but an intriguing possibility that could be used by other marketers would be to combine  “smell graffiti” scents with paint in the same cans, so that ink and scent were simultaneously sprayed.

Scented markers have been around for a long time. What about scented spray paint?

What if Krylon’s “Cherry Red” spray paint really smelled like cherries? Would that be a more attractive innovation for Safeway? For Sherwin-Williams? For graffiti artist Banksy?