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.

When was the last time we saw an innovation in the “fan” product category? This guy gives a quick demo.

I love love this product. http://www.dyson.com/fans/

The Dyson Air Multiplier™ fan works very differently to conventional fans. It uses Air Multiplier™ technology to draw in air and amplify it 15 times, producing an uninterrupted stream of smooth air. With no blades or grill, it’s safe, easy to clean and doesn’t cause unpleasant buffeting.

A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette describing how consumer feedback (or lack of it) impacts the design of cars once again reinforces how ethnographic studies trump focus groups in concept development and testing. It points out that the 2010 Ford Taurus and Buick LaCrosse were designed with input from ethnographic studies. That’s a step in the right direction for Detroit. Problem is, the article unknowingly outs those who conducted this car ethnography as having only conducted one-on-one interviews and sat with owners in their garages talking about favorite features. Talk is great, but how about a test drive? Like a prospective buyer, a research firm might want to consider hitting the highway with consumers before claiming their insights represent any kind of heavy metal thunder.

Marks & Spencer just opened a store on Nanjing Xi Lu, replacing a Muji. Both are established brands in their home country (UK and Japan) and both manufacture and package their own products. Both have a similar product approach in terms of keeping things simple but are different in their design approach. Marks & Spencer is not exactly an exciting retail experience and Muji has far better product design and presentation from functionality to aesthetics. Muji is not doing that well here, as it requires a level of sophistication to appreciate it whereas Marks & Spencer is basically selling British quality and this will win in the short term.

Distribution has always been the greatest hurdle for retailers. The opening of the wholesale sector should lead to major improvements in the distribution environment, but there is a big gap. Strategies that successful foreign enterprises have employed to overcome distribution barriers include developing their infrastructures or partnering with the locals, and both has unique challenges.

In 10 years, its retail sector has been transformed from a simple and inefficient distribution system to a much more complex and highly competitive market-oriented economy. The new retail economy in many ways resembles the contemporary retail economy in the US. It is also exhibiting significant differences with Chinese characteristics but I think eventually it will move towards a different direction. Shanghai and the rest of China is currently suffering from some kind of “Brand Fatigue” as consumers are slowly becoming more sophisticated. The trust and prestige issues carry very different meaning here in China. We are still 5-10 years away from a more predictable consumer behavior and the market evolves.

Photo by jaeja – http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaeja/2073207091/

I’ve never liked taking multivitamins. From my first Flinstone’s chewables to, more recently, Centrum’s Complete formula, the thought of ingesting makes my throat tighten in anguish. In an unofficial survey, we found that in general, taking vitamins is inconvenient, inefficient and not much fun. They get forgotten in kitchen cupboards until you’re sick enough to remember taking them. Milligrams go to waste when passed through the digestive system. And between taste and (sometimes) size, swallowing them can suck. No wonder most of us ‘forget’ to take our vitamins.

That’s where PSST! comes in. It’s a fun and futuristic way to take vitamins. Unlike tablets, capsules or liquids, it’s sublingual: sprayed under the tongue, all of the natural, bioactive ingredients the body needs each day skip past the metabolic process of digestion to be directly and quickly absorbed into the bloodstream. A product extension available in all of the same great flavors as Glacéau’s Vitamin Water and Vitamin Energy – and with the same essential vitamins, antioxidants, minerals and other ingredients – PSST! is a more portable and private way to guarantee getting the daily requirements of a healthier, happier, more energetic body.

And once they are on, there’s no guaranteeing they’ll stay on; within seconds, wiping or washing can erase a parent’s best efforts and force another round with the little champ. Even more frustrating than that, sometimes the very act of trying to care for your child is risky: many skin care products sold for babies and children contain an alarming amount of carcinogens, toxins and allergens.

Crayola Rainbow Skin Care takes the fight and fear out of kids’ skin care and puts fun in their place. Designed in collaboration with a panel of leading child physicians, medical herbalists, ayurvedic practitioners, naturopathic dermatologists and cosmeticians, this 100% natural, organic and waterproof line of draw-able skin care products relieves pain and irritation caused by the most common childhood crises, including: scrapes, bruises, chicken pox, eczema, bug bites, sunburn, sunscreen, diaper rash and, of course, those invisible boo-boos.

Case Study: Chicken Pox Party
It’s inevitable, when one child gets the chicken pox, they all get them. This can be a pint size epidemic for childcare centers. Rainbow Skin Care is easily the one and only upside to a daycare full itchy-scratchy munchkins. Turn it into an arts and crafts task. Kids can paint themselves, color each other and let their creativity run wild while soothing their itchy skin. The possibilities are endless. This could expand into a daily painting session with sunscreen before they head outside to play.  Pool-parties where the kids actually want to come out of the water to be painted wonderful (and protective) colors. Little league games that seem to always result in scrapes and tears, can now be filled with players sporting their team colors on their skin. Bug bites and bruises are no longer to be feared thanks to Rainbow Skin Care. Natural, creative juice.

• Sure I’m upset that the smug not-so-genius bar told me the problem was my fault.
  [Poor Customer Service]
• Sure I’ll have to spend 30 minutes on the phone negotiating to fix the problem with Apple Care – who, from all accounts is basically useless unless you push them to the edge. (As an aside, I’ve seen Dell’s warranty program in action – next day product replacement – no questions asked) [Poor Product Support]
• Sure Apple’s being irresponsible by not owning up to this obvious manufacturing defect and at the end of the day, I may need to shell out $800+labor+tax for a new screen[Poor Corporate Policy]

But to top it off, this issue exposes such a fundamental design flaw in the Mac Air that they are unwilling to take responsibility for [Poor Product Design]. Oh Apple – can your ego really be that inflated you can do no wrong?

Let’s have a look at Apple’s environmental policy taken from their site:

“Protecting the environment is critical to the conservation of precious natural resources and the continued health of our planet. Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen and continually strives to reduce the environmental impact of the work we do and the products we create.”

The way this laptop is designed, this little hing issue requires a complete replacement of the LCD screen. This one design flaw, negates all their talk about lower carbon emissions. Cradle-to-Cradle? More like Cradle-to-Dump. The back half of the life cycle hasn’t even been considered. This is not environmentally sustainable. Another highlight from their history of environmental achievements:

“In 2008 MacBook Air is the first product to use mercury-free back light technology with arsenic-free LCD display glass.”

Great – so when my perfectly functional screen ends up in the dump, at least there won’t be any mercury leaking into the soil. Who thought it was a good idea to attach a constantly moving part to a major (expensive) part of the computer? This machine needs to be redesigned. Message to the industrial designers at Apple – think, prototype, build and test before you send your machines into the market. While some have had their airs fixed with a brand new screen, and others have put knives through theirs,

to save one more perfectly perfectly good LCD from ending up in the Apple graveyard, you’ll find my air fashionably affixed with duct tape.

Thank you Apple.

]]> http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/05/28/fetal-twitter-device/feed/ 0 http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/05/27/3-factors-in-making-great-products-that-people-love-a-simple-user-experience-design-around-socialability-and-sustainability-and-uncovering-pleasure-associated-with-a-product/ http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/05/27/3-factors-in-making-great-products-that-people-love-a-simple-user-experience-design-around-socialability-and-sustainability-and-uncovering-pleasure-associated-with-a-product/#comments Wed, 27 May 2009 17:57:28 +0000 Idris Mootee http://ideacouture.com/blog/?p=747 What does a product designer need to do to create things that people desire? Things that jump out from the sea of sameness and justify a premium price? Can design change the elasticity of products and shape the demand curve? If yes, then what’s the use of conducting quantitative research when consumers are not inspired by possibilities?  You can ask 500 moms if they want to buy a video game console (and the answer is no) versus if they want to have a Wii. The problem with market research is misapplication, resulting it it often producing misleading data. This is worse than not having any at all.

What makes product desirable? What makes them desirable to an extent that people are attached to it (like the Blackberry, iPod or Birkin)? What is the basis of that emotional bonding? Is it based on the brand or the product or a combination of both? If they would go to the extreme to repair it, or even keep it after buying an updated version, it affects multiple ownerships.

To extend the psychological life span of products could be instrumental in reducing the demand for scarce resources and solve many sustainable challenges. Up until now, the role of the product and its design in stimulating the degree of attachment experienced toward this object remains quite obscure. As the product is under the designer’s direct control, understanding these issues is valuable for designers. Industrial designs have strong technical rational and that sometimes limits them to be reflective.

Donald Schön’s book The Reflective Practitioner (1983) discusses the crisis of professional practice. This crisis relates to the fact that professions such as architecture, design, medicine and psychology are strongly dominated by technical rationality and its positivist epistemology (PE) of practice. The problem is that PE cannot solve the dilemma of “rigor versus relevance” that professionals are confronted with. This is because PE is based on analytical, empirical and logical propositions of truth within an objective world. However, professional knowledge involves experiences, feelings and subjective evaluations, which are non-existent in PE.

The “fuzzy front end” is usually what matters and makes the most difference.  This early stage of product development often gets off to the wrong start. Too much emphasis is placed on the cost and volume trade-off and there is not enough thinking around how to turn products into a personal tool. Perhaps a tool to get work done or too to tell other who you are. In the case of a forklift, a cell phone or a toaster, you should not start with how to produce the most number of units for the lowest price while getting them into the hands of the most people.  This should come from the sales people, not the product design team. What people value most is the way that they interact with a product and what meanings it carries. This goes beyond price. The visual form, the way that they handle it, and how it makes them feel and think are all part of the design strategy. In the end, product design is simple:

- Understand the core feature that a user wants and then relentlessly reduce complexity and unnecessary elements until you get a simple user experience.
- Map out the product’s sociability – its affiliation with social groups and any product or, its category and how it is connected to different social groups or product groups.
- Look hard to find memories that are related to the product. Find pleasure that is directly and indirectly associated by using the product. Hire an anthropologist to help.

Image Source: http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2006/07/ideck_touch_screen_music_player.html; http://www.flickr.com/photos/23703702@N00/378586732/sizes/o/