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?

There are 365 days in the year and our travel luggage spends most of that time buried away in the closet.  When luggage is not being used, it takes away valuable space, and adds to the frustration of clutter creating awkward surfaces that are difficult integrate with other items.

After 100 years in the travel luggage and all the changes that the industry has been through, it is ultimately the consumers who have changed most. With a decrease in leisure travel, and an expansion of alternative means to carrying luggage from the onset as a result of increased air travel restrictions, luggage manufactures have witnessed a near perfect storm.  Retailers in particular have felt the pinch of the great recession and some brands are facing severe economic uncertainties. Research indicates that changes in air travel behavior are here to stay, and while some luggage manufacturers are forecasting expansion into overseas market development in the hopes of luring customers similar to those found in North America, the luggage manufacturers will need to take a more serious look at where they are heading toward and what they are planning to do about their business in terms of strategy and innovation.

What hope is there for the North American luggage industry to survive into the next decade?  What else can this industry do with their manufacturing expertise and brand equity?  How can they to tap some new value streams for consumers? What are some other ways to reframe the context of luggage and how it gets used?  What are some alternative functions or features that could be used in the home and the urban environment?

The following explorations pertain to ideas and opinions expressed over innovation for travel luggage industry.  The directions, departures and themes illustrated here are meant to serve as a starting point around a discussion of innovation, and do necessarily reflect the actual brand names that have been referenced.

One direction could see the extension of luggage docking familiar to travellers brought into the home environment.  This habit formed “Loading and Unloading Zone” serves as a system that can be installed by the DIY homeowner.  Key features would be stowed away storage bins, vanity mirror/wall organizer and an innovative dust trap/deodorizer for the front hallway.

A step down from the built environment could be realized as a mobile cart with integrated lighting and storage systems.  The carry-on luggage would be stationed as temporary shelving unit capable of offering up usable space in a chaotic environment.  Ambient lighting on both floor and ceiling with combined use of mirror would open up even the narrowest of passageways.

Another extension of mobility, this idea focuses on individual docking of carry-on luggage and the interplay of visibility and usable space.  Additional features would include ambient ceiling light, air-scrubbing plants (such as Bamboo Palms) and aromatic fragrances through co-branded vendors.

In this last example, here is an exploration around a stationary unit, meant to be compatible with other electronics and entertainment style furniture.  Featuring a duality of faces through the use of a swivel base, this unit allows the user to display or conceal the luggage depending on scenario of use.  Other conveniences such as magazine rack, shoe organizer and lower cupboard space invite the user to display this station which is made from the same materials and construction as the luggage itself.

]]> http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2011/01/03/pack-the-bags-for-a-new-direction/feed/ 0 http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2010/04/27/classifying-crowdsourcing-platforms/ http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2010/04/27/classifying-crowdsourcing-platforms/#comments Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:15:03 +0000 Patrick Glinski http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/?p=4172 Innovation used to be referred to be a virtuous and closed cycle. Spend money on research, develop a new big idea, create a new product, reap the benefits, and do it all over again. These days, the model of closed innovation has cracked. A workforce with less organizational loyalty, faster time to market, and an abundance of VC’s with deep pockets now makes closed innovation processes a liability in addition to an opportunity.

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