Peapod developed virtual stores with QR code-enabled shopping experiences in public spaces, such as the Chicago “L”, where customers could scan products and “Commuters can get orders started on the platform, manage shopping lists and schedule deliveries—for the next day or even several days or weeks in advance—during their train rides,” according to Peapod.

Shopmox played consolidator, grouping multiple brands such as Gap, Old Navy, Urban Outfitters, Banana Republic into virtual shopping mall accessible via a customer iPad App with a serious hat tip to Pinterest, too.

eBay figured out how to grow PayPal even further by striking deals with retailers enabling them to capture new markets of the under-banked and credit card-less. One such retailer is Patagonia who built on its Common Threads initiative and launched an eBay storefront where Patagonia clothing owners can sell secondhand clothing.

Square competitor to PayPal, expanded the reach of its mobile, social, and local retailer and streamlining point-of-sale payments. It has set out to transform the entire payments process, launching an iPad app designed to replace the cash register and point of sale credit card equipment and processing and its Card Case app brings the future of the digital wallet to smartphones today. While not a retailer they are making even the smallest enterprise retail-ready.

Bloomingdales transformed six store windows into augmented reality displays enabling passersby to try on virtual sunglasses from the street. User can try on up to 4 pairs by tapping them on the window.

Target launched it’s in-store rewards program Shopkicks that enables customers to accrue “kicks” by entering stores and scanning products. These are redeemable for Target gift cards, dining gift certificates and Facebook credits.

Warby Parker – designs its own glasses, selling them for $95, and it recently expanded into sunglasses ($150). The company keeps prices low by ordering from manufacturers and selling directly to consumers over the web with a free try before you buy program, avoiding expenses like brand licensing fees and retail markups.

The bottom line, for all retail is the use of technology has become a tool for transforming the retail experience. Some are struggling but many are making it marvelous. Look for more changes as the integration of the virtual with the physical gains momentum in the coming year

This article was originally published by Drew Marshall on:  http://collaborativeinnovation.org/retail-innovations-of-2012/

Image credit: Palo Alto Online

Many years ago, in a galaxy far, far away…My apologies; the recent purchase of Lucas Film by Disney has given me Star Wars nostalgia. I remember a time when stop motion photography and the destruction of meticulously crafted models were considered the pinnacle of movie special effects. It was also a time when I was working my may through university in retail. As I said, “many years ago”.

One of my fondest memories of working in retail was the folklore that was passed on from the store manager to the upcoming employees. The measures of performance were shared, such: Days of Supply, Turns, Stock to Sales Ratio, Sell Through Percentage and Gross Margin Return on Investment. Alongside these metrics we were also the recipients of instruction regarding sales and marketing addressing: Point of Sale Displays, End-caps, and Placement. But the phrase that stuck with me most in reference to merchandise presentation effectiveness was that it had to have, “height, light and movement”.

Needless-to-say, you haven’t seen anything as remarkable as a Christmas season display comprised of fifty, two-foot-high, electro-mechanically animated Santa Clauses, Father Christmases and Kris Kringles built into a monstrous tower. I’m sure it was the fodder of nightmares for many an unsuspecting child shopping with their parents.

In light of that past experience, and the trial and error involved in getting merchandise to not only fit in a display correctly but displayed in a way that was both attractive and that promoted sales, it is fascinating to see the direction that retail has gone as a designed experience. Today there is no “making it up as we go along” nor is there a reliance on the folklore of shop keeping. Retail has become a rigorous practice driven by data and psychology.

Nothing was made clearer about this shift than the recent presentation at the Dassault Systèmes 3D Experience Forum this week of the Perfect Shelf solution which,

Realistically simulates retail settings inside immersive, lifelike 3D environments, so that Retail and Consumer Packaged Goods companies can better imagine, validate and deploy optimum shopping experiences while increasing product appeal, brand category profitability and differentiating themselves from the competition.

Even in the last decade the development of the retail experience has undergone a dramatic shift as real-world prototyping, affording an approximation of the retail space, has given way to 3D environments in which the smallest details may be shifted to improve the overall outcome. Consider the original Apple Store retail experience. The late Steve Jobs and former Senior Vice President of Retail Operations Ron Johnson (now CEO of JCPenney) oversaw Apple’s first retail store, which opened in May, 2001. Developed in early 2000 the prototyping for the first store was conducted by building full-size physical mock-ups in a warehouse in Cupertino, CA.

Recently Apple announced a new Apple Store concept would be built in Cupertino doors down from one it’s original stores. The development of this new store was handled differently from the original in that much of the design was done online, resulting in a,

16,600-square-foot, two-story store, in which Apple will be trying out a “new prototype” of its retail environment, according to documents filed with the architectural review board in Palo Alto, Calif., where the store is located. Along with the familiar all-glass storefront and the prominent use of stone, the new store will include interior trees and a skylight.

Read more at Venture Beat 

The value of 3D modeling cannot be denied. It shortens the time between ideation and outcome by creating realistic experiences that validate intent (or confirm suspicions). It also enables the complete retail experience to be presented and explored thereby reducing the imagination required to bridge the inadequacies of a physical prototype (regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive to produce.) The value of feedback that can be obtained by sharing a 3D visualized experience cannot be over-estimated. By bringing the retail design to life in this manner it can be shared more effectively with a broader audience, further improving the design before construction. So, while there is still opportunity for height, light and movement in this new 3D world, but you won’t have to spend an arm and a leg to see if it works. And that is “a good thing.”

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/improving-the-retail-experience-virtually/

Already this morning Tesla has been sharing the “Oooo”-worthy falcon-wing doors of its new Model X cross over vehicle and how they neatly fit into the family garage, tested before production through the wonders of 3D visulaization. This continues Tesla’s run on transforming the auto industry by identifying and meeting a broad range of needs as well as producing beautiful vehicles, too.

The ability to model carries through to the customer experience. On the Tesla Motors website the vehicle configurator is powered by using Dassault Systèmes’ CATIA V6 renderings. This gives customers a much more realistic appreciation for the choices they make when the design (or create a wish list design) of their dream Tesla vehicle. The power of the 3D Experience doesn’t only improve design it creates a reaching customer engagement.

In a completely different direction, Christoph Erbelding, Structural Design – Senior FEA Analyst, for ORACLE TEAM USA, the USA team defending the America’s Cup in San Francisco in 2013, shared the impact of Dassault Systèmes’ 3D visualization to render the whole catamaran rather than in pieces. By using this process Eberling estimated that they had cut their drafting time by 50%. Through their application of innovative 3D software applications boosted ORACLE TEAM USA’s collaboration throughout the development process, enabling designers to quickly and easily refine the design of the 72-foot racing yacht  to optimize and perfect its performance before it ever hit the water.

It wasn’t just the vessel itself that benefitted from the use of 3D modeling – it was the sailing experience itself. 3D models and simulation help the boat’s crew quickly and easily review designs in a realistic virtual environment, something that has increasingly become more realistic and valuable through Dassault Systèmes’ advances. This has allowed them to see if there are items that need to be moved or reworked, or if sight lines across the boat’s need to be adjusted. It even goes so far as to employ digital manikins to simulate how team members would interact while they manned the boat saving time that can be used to further refine the design so that by the time a physical boat hits the water many challenges have been eleminated.

Needless to say, the view from afar is exciting indeed and I’m looking forward to seeing how else 3D visualization is innovating the collaborative innovation experience.

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/the-view-from-afar-3ds-in-fl-viewed-from-nj/

Talk about being a kid in a toy store. What an amazing experience to see the work of some of the best architects in collaboration with each other on massive urban projects and small scale residential efforts, alike. The theme of common ground, as it was addressed meant that the focus on “starchitects” was lessened and the concept of group effort and the dynamics of architecture/designer/client/stakeholder collaboration moved to the fore.

Running throughout the whole event was the notion of making thinking both visible and physical, with the end result being accessibility. There were diagrams, plots, elevations, and maps aplenty. But there were also huge numbers of models, and prototypes and physical structures on display, too. The sheer volume, after two days of walking the grounds, was almost overwhelming.

The value of the outpouring of creative effort cannot be over-estimated. The work contributed may or may not end up as physical buildings, although much of it reflected on existing structures, but the conceptual visualization through models and scale structures will serve as a fodder for other architects and designers, seeding their work for years to come. One critical impact is the ability to understand the context of projects in the public space. It enabled many questions to be asked and answered.

How will the building be situated? What materials will be used? How will they be transported, framed, put to use? How will the environment impact the structure? How will users interact with and inhabit the structure?

All in all the ability to collaborate to bring ideas to life was startling to see in resulting in so many different forms.

On returning home, I was reminded of the value of seeing work in three dimensions when the following video came my way. In it, the Spanish building’s lead designer Rodrigo Rubio of the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia (IAAC) explains the value of not only prototyping in 3D but realizing this design as a rapid prototype in the construction of Solar House 2.0, that was erected this year on Barcelona’s waterfront. The structure went from design to completed construction in three weeks and it was situated on the beach front to enable beachgoers to observe and interact with it.

The innovative part of the Solar House 2.0 design, according its designers, are the “solar bricks”- the cantilever sections that make up the facade. “Each single module could answer to its own structural, energetic and environmental needs. The skin will act as a network of intelligent nodes, a “solar brick” that protects from the solar radiation, collects and storage the energy the data at the local scale.”

Each module, or cantilever, integrates shade, storage, electricity production, air conditioning, natural ventilation and natural lighting (the window) and an artificial light source.

Software played a large role in the building’s construction. Relying on 3D milling – the Solar House designers employed a CNC (computer numerical control – see also CAD and CAM) wood router – the building’s individual pieces could be completely customized, creating the totally irregular patterns not possible (or affordable) with older, mass production techniques.

As a platform for testing thinking about passive solar design, placement of windows and solar panels to make the most efficient use of the sun, this prototype is an excellent example of the power of effective visualization before building. And the idea of making the prototype accessible to the public offers a direct connection to the central theme of Biennale, too.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/dimensional-visualization/

It is not just a matter of A/B testing. Although the value of A/B testing (also called multivariate testing) cannot be denied when correctly designed and implemented. Marked improvements can be seen through testing elements like text, layouts, images, form factors, user interface components and even and colors. Not all elements produce the same improvements, and by looking at the results from usually small-scale tests, it is possible to identify those elements that consistently tend to produce the greatest improvements. What we observe is that all product and service experiences benefit from the scrutiny of small changes, rapidly tested, to accelerate positive outcomes.

Factors that, by themselves, seem inconsequential when considered in terms of behaviors and in market outcomes, may have exponential impacts. A couple of very different examples come to mind. The first is service and the second is product related.

I heart you

In a recent in the FastCompany Co.Design article online, Joe Gebbia the CEO of Airbnb (a “community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the world”) described the way a small change in the presentation of user-desired affiliation data transformed engagement:

For a couple years, registered Airbnb users have been able to star the properties they browse, and save them to a list. But Gebbia’s team wondered whether just a few tweaks here and there could change engagement, so they changed that star to a heart. To their surprise, engagement went up by a whopping 30%. The star, they realized, was a generic web shorthand and a utilitarian symbol that didn’t carry much weight. The heart, by contrast, was aspirational.

This change points to the way in which a website can move from offering a utility service to being a marketplace and community for discovery and sharing, both behaviors that drive increased adoption and retention of users. But not every small change is without pain. Consider Apple’s recent redesign of a seemingly inconsequential component.

Many people will not heart you

With the recent release of the iPhone 5 many were completely underwhelmed by the advances in the technology it contained. It was a little faster. It was a little shinier. But nothing to rave about it would see; unless you talked to someone who build iPhone accessories. For those manufacturers, the change in one connector was going to transform their business entirely.

The accessories market for mobile phones globally is about $35B. For iPhones it a little more than $3B which is not a significant share on face value. But Apple has decided (in their infinite wisdom) to move from a 30 pin connector which has been standard on their iPod and iPhone devices for nearly five years, to the new Lightning connector. The primary driver is the new connector makes more room for other technical features in the device which will improve performance of existing functionality. Overall, not much change.

For accessories manufacturers this is a huge change. And for users an even bigger headache. iPhone 5 purchasers are going to need new dock connectors, new cables, new chargers, new cases, and the list goes on. This doesn’t take into account all the e-waste as we move from one set of connectors and adapters to another. One small change is going to ripple across the market for years to come. One wonders what kind of testing was considered or conducted to help manage this shift.

The case for rapid testing and prototyping is not new. The direct incorporation of the user in the experience is where there is significant traction to be found. Small changes, tested and results incorporated rapidly into the product or service development cycle can produce significant results. Just remember, that your small change might be someone else’s system nightmare; it is better to collaborate early, and often.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Prefer to Sign-up to the Weekly Collaborative Innovation Newsletter?

Lingua Franca, n. A language that is adopted as a common language between speakers whose native languages are different.

The need for an innovation vernacular cannot be denied. Experts in the field continue to wrestle with frameworks and models to help create a basic infrastructure. The process of codification goes on all while the fracturing of language continues. All this is taking place while the actual practice of innovation seems to be stabilizing into some basic tenets. The language used to describe them makes their commonality difficult to ascertain. Even the best organization practitioners of innovation struggle to tame their own approach to language, imagery, symbolism and reference.
By way of explanation, here are four different models for applying design thinking. They each have slightly different language to describe their component parts but they all share a few core elements in common. They each focus on human-centricity. Design thinking demands that the human experience be at the center of the design effort. They each explore the feasibility (will this work?), viability (can we do this?), and desirability (will this be embraced?) that appropriate and effective design demands. And they each provide a common language for participants that is not exclusionary nor is it difficult to comprehend.The powerhouse of innovation practice, as it is manifest in their design thinking approaches, is IDEO* and even they recognize the fragmented approach to describing their hallmark process. It is not that they are neglecting the need for a stable and common frame of reference. My belief is that they see that design thinking, as it is applied in a specific context, needs to adapt to that context. The notion of there being “one true approach” while appealing, is actually anathema to the way IDEO chooses to position innovation within their own organization and with their diverse array of clients.

Here are four different approaches, consider them dialects of the design thinking lingua franca.

Design Thinker: Experience Innovation

One of my business affiliates is the business simulation firm, ExperiencePoint. They have worked with IDEO to codify and systematize a version of design thinking that can be applied while running participants through a business simulation. During the activities participants are asked to provide design thinking services to a city government and can work collaboratively to define solutions that will change the city population’s sustainable behavior.

It its heart this model breaks design thinking down into three distinct phases: Inspire / Ideate / Implement. The first, Inspire, seeks to anchor participants in an empathetic understanding of the human experience as a result of which insights are formed. Next comes the Ideate phase during which opportunities are framed and ideas are generated. Finally, in perhaps the best positioning of design thinking I have experienced, participants explore the Implement phase and create and run learning-focused experiments. The whole process delivers design thinking in a linear framework which at any point can be paused, backed up, and re-started as new data comes to light.

This is only one of many of the IDEO-rooted design thinking models.

OpenIDEO

Where the Design Thinker: Experience Innovation model is built to be used and learned in a business simulation, IDEO’s OpenIDEO is an active platform for collaborative open innovation. Launched as a platform primarily dedicated to social innovation, OpenIDEO has enshrined a set of five principles that differentiate it from other design thinking models. The five principles are: Inclusion; Community-centricity; Collaboration; Optimism; and, Continuous Improvement (“Always in Beta”).

OpenIDEO was developed to foster a strong and vibrant public community that thrives on inspiration in order to make a meaningful difference in the world. The web-based platform is structured to promote teamwork among individuals and teams by recognizing the many roles that are crucial to each step of the design process and giving each an online outlet. The platform also plays into the concept that design thinking is a non-linear approach that demands iteration in order to effectively learn and scale.

While Design Thinker uses a three phase model (Inspire / Ideate / Implement) to structure its model, OpenIDEO uses a five phase model including: Inspiration / Concepting / Applause / Refinement / Evaluation. With Human-Centered Design we move back to a three phase model.

Human-Centered Design

In contrast to OpenIDEO, Human-Centered Design was developed by IDEO in collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to provide a design thinking framework for those at the bottom of the economic pyramid—those living on less than $2 per day. HCD is a process that has been used for decades to create new solutions for multi-national corporations. Building on the ways design thinking was used to create ideas such as the HeartStart defibrillator, CleanWell natural antibacterial products, and the Blood Donor System for the Red Cross—IDEO decided to deliver a program that had wider utility.

They established a not-for-profit organization (IDEO.org) to create the HCD framework and the tools contained in it. This approach to design thinking simplifies the process back to a three-phase approach, defined as: Hear / Create / Deliver. Mirroring the initials of this framework, too. The process was specifically adapted for organizations that work with communities in need in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As such Human-Centered Design (HCD) was developed to help its appliers hear the needs of constituents in new ways, create innovative solutions to meet these needs, and deliver solutions with financial sustainability in mind.

More recently IDEO.org has created an online platform to be used by NGO’s (Non-Governmental Groups) and non-profits to support their work deploying HCD principles in the field.

Design Thinking for Educators Scholars

As a final demonstration of the utility of design thinking, regardless of the specific  language employed, there are two additional, yet very similar, models: Design Thinking for Educators, and Design Thinking for Scholars. Both of these employ a five phase model: Discovery / Interpretation / Ideation / Experimentation / Evolution. They both also focus on the application of design thinking by very clearly demarcated user communities.

The first model, Design Thinking for Educators was developed in partnership with IDEO. The Design Thinking Toolkit for Educators contains the process and methods of design, adapted specifically for the context of education. Educators were actively involved in the development of this framework and their website illustrates the rich range of applications educators have found for reinvigorating their classroom methods.

The second model, Design Thinking for Scholars, is a more recent development. I worked with the Network of Leadership Scholars (an affiliate group of the Academy of Management, an international group of scholars dedicated to research in the theory and practice of management), to develop this model. It has the same five phases as Design Thinking for Educators, but the component steps within the model are tailored specifically to meet the needs of researchers.

We have applied this model most recently at conference in Boston, MA working on the design challenge of fostering and sustaining emergent leadership at the bottom of the economic pyramid. It is early days, but given the utility of design thinking we fully expect to see it have a meaningful impact on bridging the divide between scholars and practitioners and more broadly provide a contribution to the practice of scholarship.

As you can see, design thinking can be enacted in a variety of ways. The key is to understand the needs of the participants, and the needs of the constituency for whom you are intending to design. Based on that understanding, the choice of the design thinking model should become clear. As long as the participants engage in a common design thinking language their collaborative innovation will thrive.

Are you using design thinking in your innovation efforts? What language are you using? How is that working for you?

*Note: although I use an IDEO-based design thinking simulation in my client work, I have no direct relationship with IDEO and receive no direct benefit from them.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Prefer to Sign-up to the Weekly Collaborative Innovation Newsletter?

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/lingua-franca/

Each year the editors at MIT Sloan Management Review (SMR) announce the winners of the Richard Beckhard Memorial Prize. The Prize is awarded annually to the authors of the most outstanding MIT SMR article on planned change and organizational development from the previous academic year.

This year’s winner is The Collaborative Organization: How to Make Employee Networks Really Work. By Rob Cross, Peter Gray, Shirley Cunningham, Mark Showers and Robert J. Thomas

As they state,
The key to delivering both operational excellence and innovation is having networks of informal collaboration. Within IT organizations in large global companies, we have seen that innovative solutions often emerge unexpectedly through informal and unplanned interactions between individuals who see problems from different perspectives. What’s more, successful execution frequently flows from the networks of relationships that help employees handle situations that don’t fit cleanly into established processes and structures.ner details the way in which collaborative organizations maximize the effectiveness and impact of their employee networks. As a huge advocate for and proponent of making social networks visible and useful in organizations it is great to see networks recognized in this manner.

The Leading Research Question: How can companies build more collaborative and innovative organizations?

Findings:

• Executives should analyze employee collaboration networks to discover how high-performing individuals and teams connect.
• Networks should be designed to optimize the flow of good ideas across function, distance and technical specialty.
• Network analysis can show where too much connectivity slows decision making. ()

The full article can be see here at the MIT SMR website.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/the-collaborative-organization-and-networks/

As a not-so-secret aviation fan the recent Farnborough Air Show was crammed with all sorts of delights. The shape of the wings of the Qatar Air Boeing 787 Dreamliner taking off for a demonstration flight over the airfield were a marvel of industrial engineering and a truly beautiful design. The behemoth Airbus A380, now an established part of many aviation fleets, continued to impress with its scale and power. But it was in the quiet corner of the tradeshow, hidden from view among the various tents, that my attention was most piqued.

Long established as a maker of ridiculously luxurious automobiles (see: in-door mounted umbrellas), Rolls-Royce is perhaps less well known as the manufacturer of high performance jet engines. In fact, it is the leading manufacturer of jet engines for corporate jets (holding a little more than 34% market share) and its engines are used in 45 of 50 of the world’s leading commercial aviation fleets. Rolls-Royce had on display at Farnborough a remarkable scale model, celebrating its latest turbofan jet engine the Trent 1000, made entirely out of Lego.

A picture is worth a thousand words. An interface is worth a thousand pictures. 

— Ben Shneiderman

You may recall I might have mentioned a fondness for Lego in a previous post or two. This engine model is the most technically complicated design ever produced in Lego. At 152,000 pieces it is truly magnificent. But that only serves to trigger a further exploration of the engine itself.

The Lego model serves to open up a consideration of how deceptively simple the engine appears yet is obviously a wildly expensive and complicated piece of machinery. To that end, Rolls-Royce’s executives have been known to state that their engines, weighing almost six tons, are worth their weight in silver (the Trent 1000 are actually worth three times their weight in silver.) By comparison the average car is worth its weight—in ground beef.

Bizarre conversion rates aside, the statistics on the actual Trent 1000 engine are amazing:

The large fan blades (visible when you board an aircraft) pull in between 2,400 – 2,670 lbs of air per second.

This produces between 53,000 – 74,000lb of thrust.

The heart of the engine is made of titanium turbofan blades each not much bigger than a chef’s kitchen knife and each generating 800 hp – the equivalent of a Formula 1 race car.

The outside edge of the turbofan blades travel at twice the speed of sound.

For all the noise internally the new engines are the quietest engines around for their power to weight ratio.

The internal temperatures of the engine can rise to a level half as hot as the surface of the sun!

With this kind of complexity the intricacy of the engineering leaves little room for error. Which is why the ability to visualize in three dimensions is critical to not only test new innovations, but also to control the costs associated with producing a piece of equipment designed to propel people through the atmosphere at great speed.

3D models enabled the acceleration of collaborative thinking between Rolls-Royce engineers and their customers, and the earlier identification and prevention of potential problems in the Trent 1000 design. Advanced performance-driving technologies could be created and tested, such as the previously mentioned soluble core high pressure turbine blades, that provide life-cycle cost benefits which airlines are seeking as a way to offset their most expensive overhead, jet fuel. Smart features such as the 3D aero design compressor and low-hub-tip ratio fan also ensure the engine is efficient and reliable across a wide range of operations which is critical for lower fuel consumption.

Design elements that might have taken longer to conceive and been more error prone if produced on paper could be realized swiftly digitally. For Rolls-Royce the evolution of its engines has steadily improved fuel efficiency and over the past 30 years has extended the operating life of engines tenfold (to about ten years between major rebuilds). Thinking spatially enables questions to be asked an answered about testing, construction, access, maintenance, and safety. Modeling has delivered performance that customers prize. And Rolls-Royce is not doing too badly, either.

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/concept-to-creation/

Brainstorming, as the most visible activity being addressed, has long borne the brunt of derisive and dismissive commentary. Its value has been called into question on numerous occasions. More recently the pitch against this practice has become focused on the relative value and productivity of thinking of new ideas alone. It seemed strange that in order for introverts to come to the fore it was necessary to malign some of the practices and attributes of the extroverts.

If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

- African proverb

My only response is that the value of brainstorming in groups is only as good as the context in which the brainstorming is conducted and the rules which serve to guide its participants. In short, not all brainstorming is created equal, but many who conduct brainstorming sessions fall short because they do not prepare adequately, nor do they facilitate the brainstorming effectively. Accommodations can be made to ensure that all voices are captured in a brainstorming session, but to do so attention must be paid.

One of the best platforms for brainstorming comes from the design firm, IDEO. In an organization dedicated to bending and often breaking established rules, their seven rules of brainstorming are adhered to with a fervor bordering on the pathological. They are:

1. Defer judgment
2. Encourage wild ideas
3. Build on the ideas of others
4. Stay focused on the topic
5. One conversation at a time
6. Be visual
7. Go for quantity

Note: I know the power of these brainstorming rules as I have used them successfully with my clients when running design thinking programs and innovation workshops. Improving the way in which we brainstorm could certainly use some attention. Killing brainstorming as a practice is not necessary.

Quiet people have the loudest minds.

- Steven King

I don’t believe that this was Cain’s intent. In fact, I think what she is trying to do with her book is carve out enough room so that introverts can quite literally “take the breath” they need before contributing. What I think has occurred is that upon a cursory examination of the book some reviewers have determined that it seeks to tear down behaviors that they value and hold dear. Due to the inflammatory nature of the comments they are being widely reported across multiple media outlets (both mainstream and blogging arenas.)

The general thesis contained in Quiet shows how dramatically we undervalue introverts, and how much we lose in doing so. This is not to be denied. But the message is being muddied by the focus on one facet and not the whole system in place that thwarts the full and meaningful contribution of the introverted,

That is an issue that the very best innovation thinkers should put their minds to. We all need to work together more effectively. If we have created business systems and practices that prevent 30-40% of our organization’s participants from feeling like they can contribute, let alone be heard, how much value are we leaving on the table?

*This item was originally posted by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/common-purpose-beats-splendid-isolation/

I was reminded of the will to innovate (versus the desire) by Jonathan Fields’ recent blog post recounting his experience in a job interview process during which he “dodged a bullet” in the form of an organization that professed to want innovation, but all was not as it seemed. You can check out his post here. The short version is that during the process of being interviewed for a senior (think C-suite, or O-zone position, if you will) Fields discovered that what people said they wanted and what they actually wanted in terms of innovation were further apart than anyone was explicitly saying. No one was more divergent between thought and act than the CEO. Thank goodness for his own sanity that he was able to identify that before he took on a role in which he would so obviously not have succeeded.

As I finished reading the post and reflected on my own experience I was left with the following, that if you want innovation you have to pick: Dressed for action or window dressing – what’s it to be? In pondering that I identified five tell-tale traits that senior leaders and their organizations exhibit when they say they want innovation but would rather prefer window display dummies. How many of these ring true for you?

Lip-serving

v. Verbal expressions of agreement or allegiance, unsupported by real conviction or action.

“We are really looking for breakthrough innovations.” “We want over 50% of our revenue to come from new products within the next three years.” “We need to re-earn our market-leading position through demonstrated innovative thinking and action.”

Me? I want a unicorn, more hair, and a bank account filled with an [insert-NSFW-adjective-here] -load of money. It might seem strange but wanting something and doing something are actually two different acts with very different outcomes. Desire does not equal intent. The company that focuses on paying lip-service to innovation wants, they just don’t want it bad enough to do something about it.

Innovation is a sexy beast. Wildly attractive it entices leaders and managers to say the most outrageous things and make the most outlandish commitments. Those statements and commitments are often full of hot air. Leaders paying lip-service to the latest and greatest is nothing new. The challenge with innovation is that because it has such a powerful and alluring pull by introducing it to the organization and not doing anything to support and deliver it the repercussions can be profound in terms of the generation of internal conflict and ill-will.

Don’t mess with the unicorn or you’ll get the horn.

Underfunding

v. Providing insufficient funding for the outcome you desire.

“We need you to think creatively about how to resource this effort.” “We want you to bootstrap this project.” “We think that fittest projects will survive to earn budget approval.”

Those who live in hope, die wanting. Hoping that everyone will ignore the fact that “doing more with less” most often means doing less is no path to innovation success. Innovation requires investment. No it may not require cash, but it will certainly require time and resources. Organizations that pretend to innovate but don’t offer a clear path to funding the advances for which they are looking are simply living in a cost-cutting fantasy land where present value trumps investment. The compelling needs of today will always trump the potential rewards of the future. Budget cuts, when they come, (and they will because the enterprise is not investing its future,) will inevitably hit innovation efforts first.

Attempting to goad innovation out of an organization without paying attention to funding models is akin to trying to procure blood form a stone. It is hard work and you will have nothing but pain and suffering to show for your efforts. Innovation never magically appeared because it was starved into being.

Hope is not an innovation strategy.

Over-committing

v. Promising, undertaking, or allocating more than the available resources justify.

“We want to throw it all out there and see what sticks.” “We think that if we place multiple bets something will hit.” “We want you to do this as part of the 10% program, but don’t forget we need that TPS report before 10 am tomorrow.”

Busy-ness is not the business of innovation. The notion of filling the innovation pipeline to increase the chances of picking a winner by playing the “innovation is a volume game” is a false trade. The effort of production and the process of editing the results often become so bogged down that it is impossible to reap rewards in a timely fashion. Ideas got lost among a sea of their peers. Or, worse yet, ideas are not edited they are all committed to by half measures and the organization achieves nothing but seizure.

The over-commitment of the organization across too many innovation ideas leads to early chaos as participants clamor for resources and later frustration as resource scarcity means nothing can make progress. One of the essential elements of a strong approach to innovation is a clear strategic intent; know where innovation fits with and supports the over-arching innovation strategy. Without that link the organization becomes overextended and cannot deliver, both internally and in the marketplace.

The absence of a “To Don’t” list will kill you.

Exhausting

v. Wearing out completely; Draining of resources or properties; Depleting; Using up; Enervating.

“We think this new (10^th) innovation initiative will really galvanize the staff.” “We think that this new training program with give people all the skills they need to be successful.” “We want you to use this new technology platform so that we can track all your innovation efforts.”

One of the few things that single out a “no go” innovation zone in an enterprise is the presence of “initiative fatigue.” Initiative fatigue occurs when an organization’s leaders introduce one initiative after another in relatively quick succession in an attempt to propel its members to higher levels of performance. By quick succession we are talking one every 90 to 180 days. Usually divorced from the enterprise strategy (if there is one) these initiatives pile up on each other like a chain-reaction fender bender on a highway. Everything becomes too hard to complete, so little positive improvement occurs.

Rather than staging a single innovation initiative appropriately by effectively setting expectations for changes in behavior and performance, and providing mechanisms to support that behavior change, while managing the change associated with embedding the new innovation process, an organization that keeps introducing initiatives creates overwhelming exhaustion. GE under the leadership of Jack Welch figured this out. They allowed themselves one corporate-wide initiative at a time and they put themselves on a 3-year minimum timeframe to implement each one.

Innovation efforts causing fatigue instead of energy create little but frustration.

Me-too-ing – v.

Adopting successful or persuasive policies or practices used or promoted by someone else.

“We think that we can beat our competitors by emulating their latest product success.” “We think that if Amazon can do it, how can it be so hard.” “We want to practice the same design principles as Apple, but do it in a low-cost manner.”

The last of the five tell-tale traits of an organization that is pretending at innovation is one focused on copying every new idea as it comes along. They will be crowd-sourcing, gamestorming, brainchasing, ideacasting, hero journeying, consumerizing, and incubating their little hearts out. If a competitors is doing something new they will be copying it. If it was featured in a national magazine with a top 100 list, they will be trying it. No idea is too broad or ill-fitting to not be considered. Everything wins!

This organization has no time for self-reflection, or consideration of its own strengths and weaknesses. Its members constantly survey the world outside for examples of the success of others so that they might as rapidly as possible be claimed as their own. Regardless of how inappropriate or poorly matched the ideas may be, if they are new and shiny their “in.” The end result being an organization that begins to literally stand for nothing. Over time the constant dashing after the latest and greatest hollows out the organization until it becomes a cipher. It is left “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it’s not innovation.

Once again I ask: when you think of your own organization, is it dressed for action or window dressing? If you want innovation, you have to act. Pretending to innovate won’t make it so and you’ll likely be caught out as an empty shirt.

This item was originally published by Drew Marshall on: http://collaborativeinnovation.org/5-traits-of-pretending-to-innovate/