Посты автора boydadmin

boydadmin

The Division Technique: Cutting Innovation Down to Size

Published date: April 14, 2014 в 4:06 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

You can frequently make groundbreaking innovations simply by dividing a product into “chunks” to create many smaller versions of it. These smaller versions still function like the original product, but their reduced size delivers benefits that users wouldn’t get with the larger, “parent” product. This is one of three approaches of the Division Technique called “Preserving Division.”

Les Paul used Preserving Division to produce his multitrack recording by taking a single piece of media—a tape—and dividing it into multiple smaller tracks that perform the same function as the original large piece of tape.

We see this all the time in the technology industry. For years, computer makers kept increasing the capacity of hard drives (the devices within PCs on which programs and data are stored). Then an engineer had a brilliant idea to use Preserving Division to create mini personal storage devices. Today many people won’t leave their desks without placing their “thumb” drives in their briefcase or pocket. These mini storage units are designed specifically for people who must carry electronic versions of documents with them but don’t want to be burdened with laptops or other computing devices. They simply transfer documents from their PCs to their thumb drives, and walk away from the computer.

Many food manufacturers use the Preserving Division technique to create more convenient versions of popular products. By taking a regular serving or portion of a product and dividing it into multiple smaller portions, manufacturers allow consumers to purchase food products in more convenient and cost-effective ways. Consumers buy only what they need instead of a larger amount. Recently, manufacturers have even used Preserving Division to help people curb their calorie intake by providing popular snacks in smaller, more diet-friendly packages. Kraft Foods’s Philadelphia Cream Cheese brand does this by offering individually wrapped single-serving-size portions of its flagship product for people to put in their brown-bag lunches or take to the office with a breakfast bagel.

The time-sharing arrangements that many hotels and condominiums offer provide more examples of Preserving Division. Under timesharing, a year of “ownership” of a property is divided into fifty-two smaller units of a week each. Each unit is then sold to a different owner, who has the right to live in the property for that week. Each smaller unit preserves the characteristics of the whole. Ownership has been divided over time.

Likewise, when you make payments on a loan, you are sending small amounts of money created by dividing the larger, principal amount of the loan. Like the time-sharing condos, the division is based on time.

When doctors treat cancer tumors with radiation therapy, they have to be sure to kill the cancer tissue without doing too much damage to the surrounding healthy tissue. How? They divide the total dose of radiation into smaller, less lethal doses and aim them at the tumor from many different angles. The smaller beams of high-energy X‑rays, divided in space, converge to hit the cancer cells. But the lighter dose of any one beam does not do enough damage to other tissue that it hits along the way.

To get the most out of the Division technique, you follow five basic steps:

1.  List the product’s or service’s internal components.

2.  Divide the product or service in one of three ways:

  • Functional (take a component and rearrange its location or when it appears).
  • Physical (cut the product or one of its components along any physical line and rearrange it).
  • Preserving (divide the product or service into smaller pieces, where each piece still possesses all the characteristics of the whole).

3.  Visualize the new (or changed) product or service.

4. What are the potential benefits, markets, and values? Who would want this, and why would they find it valuable? If you are trying to solve a specific problem, how can it help address that particular challenge?

5. If you decide you have a new product or service that is indeed valuable, then ask: Is it feasible? Can you actually create this new product or perform this new service? Why or why not? Can you refine or adapt the idea to make it more viable?

Keep in mind that you don’t have to use all three forms of Division, but you boost your chance of scoring a breakthrough idea if you do.

Think Inside the Skyscraper: Innovations in Architecture

Published date: April 7, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Skyscrapers are amazing from any vantage point – near, far, or even inside. If you look closely, you’ll spot the patterns inherent in the techniques of Systematic Inventive Thinking. Take a look at these five examples.

1. MULTIPLICATION: Architect Bruce Graham probably didn’t realize he was using Multiplication when he created the Sears Tower in Chicago (officially now called the Willis Tower). Inspired by a pack of cigarettes, he produced a collection of nine tubes, each of a different height. When attached to specially manufactured steel frames that lashed each tube to the others, the tubes created a building possessing significantly greater structural integrity than that of a single-tube building.

Graham’s thought process actively followed the Multiplication pattern, but he could have just as easily used the Division pattern from the last chapter. He could have taken the main element—a building—and physically divided it along the tall, vertical lines to create a building with multiple parts. We see this often when teaching the SIT method: two or more techniques can yield the same innovative idea. If Graham kept each of the vertical pieces identical in terms of height and function, we would consider this the Preserving version of Division. Each technique will get to the innovative idea. Whereas Division forces you to cut a component in one of three ways—functional, physical, or preserving—and then rearrange it in space or time, Multiplication forces you to duplicate a component and change it.

Elevator2. DIVISION: What is the first thing you do when you step into an elevator? For most people: push the button of the floor you are going to. Not so with a new breed of elevators manufactured by Schindler North America.  These elevators have the buttons on the outside, not inside. The buttons for selecting your floor are on each floor. Instead of just pushing a single up or down button to hail an elevator, you push the button for the floor you want as though you were inside.

The Division Template is the culprit here. In this innovation sighting, the elevator floor button panel was divided out and placed back into the system…outside the elevator cab. Very novel, useful, and surprising.

3. TASK UNIFICATION: The essence of Task Unification is assigning as additional job to an existing resource. In this example, game designers played Tetris on the side of a 29-story skyscraper in Philadelphia. The exhibition celebrated the 30th anniversary of Tetris, which Alexey Pajitnov created in the former Soviet Union and Henk Rogers brought to the rest of the world. The spectacle was a great example of video game marketing at its finest.

“It’s humongous,” Rogers said. “I love it. I’ve been playing around with a giant Tetris at Burning Man for the last seven years. This is an order of magnitude bigger.”

In the super-sized Tetris game, multiple players could go head-to-head in a battle that people on either side of the city could watch. Several thousand people came out to witness the event.

4. ATTRIBUTE DEPENDENCY: The essence of Attribute Dependency is “as one thing changes, another thing changes.” In this example, the view changes depending on the rotation of the floor of the building.

The Da Vinci Tower (also known as Dynamic Architecture Building) is a proposed 313 m (1,027 ft), 68-floor tower in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Each floor will be able to rotate independently. This will result in a constantly changing shape for the tower. Each floor will rotate a maximum of one full rotation in 90 minutes.  The entire tower will be powered by wind turbines and solar panels that will also provide electricity to five other buildings in the vicinity. The turbines will be located between each of the rotating floors and could generate up to 1,200,000 kilowatt-hours of energy.

5. SUBTRACTION: A skyscrapers puzzle requires determining the heights of a grid of buildings. Numbers at the edges of the grid tell the number of skyscrapers visible from that direction. Taller buildings block the view of all lower buildings behind them. Each row and column must have exactly one building of each height.

Think “subtraction” and you may just be able to solve this little riddle.

For a fascinating look at skyscrapers, check out The Heights: Anatomy of a Skyscraper by Kate Ascher.

The Six Best Books on Creativity and Innovation

Published date: March 24, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,,

Creativity is what you do in your head to generate an idea, while innovation is the process of putting it into practice. You need both to succeed, which may be why the number of new books on these topics seems to grow every year. Yet despite the popularity of this category and the steady stream of new books, I continue to go back to the classics, those books that actually taught me how to do it versus those books that just talked about it.  Caution – these are not “light reads,” but they’re the ones I’ve learned the most from.
The-Act-of-Creation-Cover1.  The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler
All creative activities have a basic pattern in common. Koestler describes this pattern in amazing detail across many disciplines. Knowing this pattern will help you generate better ideas.
 
 
Creativity-in-Product-Innovation-Cover2.  Creativity in Product Innovation by Jacob Goldenberg and David Mazursky
Inspired by Genrich Altshuller, Goldenberg and Mazursky struck gold when they discovered creativity templates that regulate one’s thinking and channel the ideation process. From these emerged a bona fide method to innovate…on demand.
 
Creative-Cognition-Cover3. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications by Ronald A. Finke, Thomas B. Ward, and Steven M. Smith
This is the best work from the field of cognitive psychology. It explains why creativity happens exactly backwards from what you think. The authors share their research and experiments to back up their surprising claims.
 
The-Creative-Mind-Cover4.  The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms by Margaret A. Boden
This one reminds me of Koestler’s classic, but it goes further to debunk many of the myths and wrong-headed notions about creativity and innovation. Boden also makes a case for automating the creative act.
 
 
Mastering-the-Dynamics-of-Innovation-Cover5. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation by James M. Utterback
This masterpiece is the inspiration for the highly-popular notion of disruptive innovation. A professor at MIT, Utterback lays out how innovation transforms industries, for better or for worse. It will change how you approach innovation.
 
 
Think-Before-Its-Too-Late-Cover6. Think!: Before It’s Too Late by Edward de Bono
de Bono may be the most recognized name in creativity. Of his twenty seven books, this is my favorite. Think of it as “The Best of Ed.” It’s pithy and wise, and I quote from it constantly. At age 80+, this may be de Bono’s last.

Task Unification: The Essence of Citizen Science

Published date: March 17, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Back in 2008, biology professor Gretchen LeBuhn at San Francisco State University was growing exceedingly concerned. Her study of bee populations in Napa Valley, California, showed that the number of wild specialist bees (bees that specialize in pollinating certain species of flowers) was declining rapidly. She speculated that the decline might be due to the extensive vineyards in the area—Napa Valley is the heart of California’s wine region—but she needed more data to be certain. She was especially worried about the implications on a national level. Was this happening everywhere?

The consequences of wild specialist bees disappearing would be quite severe. One of every three bites of food you put into your mouth exists due to “animal pollination,” or the movement of insects— particularly bees—between plants. Animal pollinators play a crucial role in both flowering plant reproduction and the production of fruits and vegetables. Most plants require the assistance of pollinators to produce seeds and fruit. About 80 percent of all flowering plants and more than three-quarters of staple crop plants such as corn and wheat that feed humankind rely on animal pollinators like bees.
Scientific studies had been suggesting for some time that both honey bee and native bee populations were declining. Scientists like LeBuhn feared this would harm pollination of garden plants, crops, and wild plants. If scientists knew more about bee behavior—if they could collect enough data about bees across multiple time zones and geographic locations—they could perhaps devise ways to conserve and increase the size of the bee population.
But how could you track bees on such a large scale? Gretchen had a limited research budget—just $15,000—scavenged from various organizations and grants by her department. Although she sent a student back to Napa Valley to perform additional measurements and bee counts, even this proved too expensive and time consuming due to the distance between the San Francisco–based campus and Napa Valley. Then Gretchen had an idea. She’d gotten to know several of the Napa vineyard owners well over the course of her study. Perhaps they would collect data for her? She asked, and they agreed to perform the relatively simple task. They agreed so readily, in fact, that Gretchen got excited. If a busy vineyard owner could count bees, anyone could. An avid gardener herself, she wondered if she could recruit homeowners with gardens to join her mission.
First, Gretchen needed to come up with a simple, standardized protocol for collecting bee data that anyone could follow. “Sunflowers,” she thought. Sunflowers are easy to grow, are native to the continental forty-eight United States, and, best of all, have a large and relatively flat surface area. It’s easy to see bees on the face of a sunflower. Gretchen tested the idea on some friends at the local nature conservatory. She gave them sunflower seeds, asked them to plant and water them, and, when the flowers bloomed, to count bees for an hour at a specific time each day. Everyone objected immediately. Although willing to help, her friends were not going to gaze at sunflowers for an hour at a stretch. But even after cutting the time to fifteen minutes, Gretchen heard nothing from her volunteers. No one reported any data. She finally got on the phone and began making calls. What she heard shocked her. “I didn’t call you back because I didn’t see any bees,” her friends told her.
Alarmed, Gretchen decided to push on with the experiment, which she dubbed the Great Sunflower Project. She created a website and found volunteers by emailing a small number of master gardener coordinators in a few southern states. They, in turn, broadcast her request to their networks. Within twenty-four hours, Gretchen had 500 volunteers. By the end of the week, she had 15,000 offers to help. Eventually the website crashed due to the overwhelming response.
Gretchen’s Task Unification innovation—assigning an internal task (data collection) to an external resource (home gardeners)—had launched with a bang. Today the Great Sunflower Project has more than 100,000 volunteers who count bees and report their findings online. Gretchen uses the data to map pollinators; pollinator services use it to determine where bees are thriving and where they need help. Gretchen kept the structure of the experiment simple. Each year on a specific day in mid-July or August, volunteers go out to their gardens and watch for bees. For fifteen minutes, they count the number and types of bees that land on their sunflowers. Volunteers enter their observations online. And then they’re done for another year. But however small a role any individual volunteer plays, each bit of information adds up to a very large and rich pool of research data. With so many tens of thousands of people contributing from all over the country, researchers have created national maps of wild specialist bee populations that are helping them determine when and where to focus conservation efforts.
“Simply by taking that fifteen-minute step, these citizen scientists make a contribution to saving bees,” LeBuhn said. “It’s remarkable having all these different people willing to participate, willing to help, and interested in making the world a better place.”

From Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results

Academic Focus: Columbia Business School on Marketing and Innovation

Published date: March 10, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Columbia Business School is offering a three-day Executive Education program called Marketing and Innovation. The program will teach Systematic Inventive Thinking as well as other key innovation concepts.

The program will be held June 17-19 and November 18-20 in New York. The program is ideal for middle- to upper-level executives who are responsible for strategic innovation and new product development. It is especially good for organizations that wish to send a cross-functional team to work on a specific challenge or project together.

Participants will gain a complete toolkit to take with them in order to tackle marketing challenges more creatively, by generating product-centered as well as market-centered insights. They will also learn the art of persuasion to help them find support for innovation through the organization.

This is a hands-on, three-day program that will help participants generate creative solutions to problems – solutions that are both novel as well as useful. Each session provides a short conceptual framework followed by an introduction of practical tools and a workshop where the tools can be applied.

Key topics include:
• Leveraging various outside constituencies in innovation (e.g., customers, lead users).
• Finding big opportunities and ideas
• Generating Product, Market, and Customer Insights
• Screening Ideas and Rapid Experimentation
• Building a Culture of Innovation
Participants from last year’s program had this to say:

“Innovation can be learned. So many people are intimidated by the concept of innovation because they think you have to be this incredibly genius-type person. But we’ve learned all sorts of tools that everybody can use. As long as you think systematically and follow a process, you can come up with good results. This was gratifying to me: that I, too, can be innovative and that I can really be good at it.”
– Kathy Farley, Dow Jones and Company
“Marketing and Innovation was a great way to learn new techniques for innovative thinking in the business environment. I can’t wait to apply these concepts in my company.”
– Molly Poppie, The Nielsen Company

“Marketing and Innovation was completely eye opening. The biggest value was discovering that you can learn creativity and understanding that, as a good manager, you have to carve out time during your week [for innovation] and inspire your team. Allowing people to share ideas and that you’re trusting them: that’s something I’ve learned through this course.”
– Bettina Alonso, Oceana

“From my perspective, I’d describe the program as the future. A lot of the concepts I’ve learned are going to drive forward my business, our ideas and where we go.”
– Ben Healy, Clayton Utz

The Multiplication Technique: Multiplying Your Problems Away

Published date: March 3, 2014 в 7:58 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

One very effective, but nonintuitive way to use Multiplication is to multiply the most offending component in a problem and then change it so that it solves the problem. Yes, you actually make more of the very thing you are trying to discard. The key is to duplicate the nastiest component and imagine a scenario in which that copy could offer useful characteristics. Two researchers used this very technique and revolutionized the way we cope with dangerous insect species today.

Diseases transmitted by the tsetse fly kill more than 250,000 people every year. If you’re lucky enough not to die from its bite, you’re almost certain to contract sleeping sickness, a horrifying illness that causes victims’ brains to swell and a host of other painful, debilitating symptoms. People who contract this disease become confused and anxious. They lose physical coordination and experience severe disruptions in their sleep cycles. Sufferers are so fatigued that they typically sleep all day yet lie awake at night with insomnia. If left untreated, sleeping sickness causes victims to steadily deteriorate mentally until they lapse into comas and eventually die.

Tsetse flies have plagued Earth’s inhabitants for more than thirty- four million years. Yet a simple act of Multiplication can wipe them out of an entire region in less than a year.

The story begins in the 1930s. Two scientists at the US Department of Agriculture in Menard, Texas, Raymond Bushland and Edward Knipling, were seeking a way to eliminate the screwworms that were devastating cattle herds across the Midwest. They wanted to do this without resorting to spraying deadly chemicals on both milk and beef cows. By the early 1950s, these insects were costing American meat and dairy farmers $200 million annually. As with most of the techniques in this book, the problem would not have been solved without breaking some form of fixedness—in this case, Functional Fixedness. Until Bushland and Knipling joined forces, scientists’ ability to think creatively was stymied by the fixed idea that when male insects mate with female insects, they produce offspring. This meant that, from the point of view of eradicating the disease, mating was considered a purely negative phenomenon.

Bushland and Knipling turned this idea on its head. By multiplying the males, but—again, a critical aspect of Multiplication—changing a key characteristic in a nonobvious way, they transformed male screwworms into a deadly force against their own species. The solution was elegant and deceptively simple. Bushland and Knipling sterilized a batch of the male screwworms. They then released the sterile males into the US heartland. Naturally, when these screwworms mated, they produced no offspring, and the screwworm population steadily declined year after year. Thanks to Bushland and Knipling’s sterile insect technique, or S.I.T.—not to be confused with the SIT (Systematic Inventive Thinking) method—the United States eliminated the screwworm completely by 1982. The same technique is now used to attack other insect species that threaten livestock, fruits, vegetables, and crops. As S.I.T. uses no chemicals, leaves no residues, and has no effect on nontarget species, it is considered extremely environmentally friendly.

But back to the tsetse flies. Residents of the African island of Zanzibar had suffered for centuries from the ravages of sleeping sickness. Scientists used S.I.T. to multiply a male tsetse fly times tens of thousands. They then changed these “copies” by radiating and sterilizing them, and introduced them to the general fly population. Because tsetse females can mate only once in their life cycle, the sterile males effectively prevented them from reproducing. As the older tsetse flies died off, successive generations became smaller and smaller until they disappeared entirely. In just months, the tsetse flies’ reign of terror was over.

Multiplying is just a fancy word for copying, you say? Is it creative, you wonder? In 1992, Bushland and Knipling were awarded the prestigious World Food Prize in recognition of their remarkable scientific achievement. Former US Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman called their research and the resulting sterile insect technique “the greatest entomological achievement of the twentieth century.”

From Inside the Box: A Proven System of Creativity for Breakthrough Results

Innovation Sighting: Getting Your Competition to Promote You

Published date: February 24, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,

How do you get your competitor to promote your value proposition? By thinking inside the box, or, in this case, using the box.

DHL did just that in the highly competitive package delivery category. Shipping companies compete on the basis of speed, convenience, and reliability. So the race is on to prove to the market which company performs the best.

In this campaign, DHL spoofed its competitors like UPS to broadcast that it's faster. Can you guess how?

This clever campaign is an example of two of the five techniques of Systematic Inventive Thinking – Task Unification and Attribute Dependency.

The Task Unification Technique is defined as: the assignment of new tasks to an existing resource (i.e. any element of the product or its vicinity within the manufacturer’s control). In this example, the"competition" has been assigned the additional task of "promoting the DHL value proposition" about being faster.

To use Task Unification:
1. List all of the components, both internal and external, that are part of the Closed World of the product, service, or process.
2. Select a component from the list. Assign it an additional task. Consider ways to use each of the three Task Unification methods:

  • Choose an external component and use it to perform a task that the product already accomplishes
  • Choose an internal component and make it do something new or extra
  • Choose an internal component and make it do the function of an external component (effectively “stealing” the external component’s function)

3. If you decide that an idea is valuable, you move on to the next question: Is it feasible? Can you actually create this new product? Perform this new service? Why or why not? Is there any way to refine or adapt the idea to make it more viable?

The Attribute Dependency Technique is defined as: the creation/removal of symmetries or dependencies between existing product properties. As one thing changes, another thing changes. In this example, DHL created a dependency between "elapsed time" and the "visibility of the message."

To use Attribute Dependency, make two lists. The first is a list of internal attributes. The second is a list of external attributes – those factors that are not under your control, but that vary in the context of how the product or service is used. Then, create a matrix with the internal and external attributes on one axis, and the internal attributes only on the other axis. The matrix creates combinations of internal-to-internal and internal-to-external attributes that we will use to innovate.  Take these virtual combinations and envision them in two ways. If no dependency exists between the attributes, create one. If a dependency exists, break it.  Using Function Follows Form, try to envision what the benefit or potential value might be from the new (or broken) dependency between the two attributes.

Have You Reached Your Creative Peak?

Published date: February 17, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

A new study by Philip Hans Franses of the Erasmus School of Economics in the Netherlands may suggest the point in time when we reach our creative peak.
Franses examined the lifespans of 221 famous painters between 1800 and 2004, and estimated the year they created their most creative work based on the artist’s most expensive painting ever sold. “For each of these artists, the most expensive painting was identified and taken as an indicator of peak creativity,” Franses said in the study.
He found that the painters produced their most highly-valued work of art when they were an average of 41.92 years old. He also noted that the paintings were created when the artists had lived about 62% of their total lives. That percentage is remarkably close to the famous “Golden Ratio” of 61.8% found in art, nature, and even financial forecasting.
If the ratio is true for painters, could it transfer to other domains? Are we destined to hit our highest point of creativity at the two-thirds point of our lives? For example, if you live to 85, that means your creative peak will occur around 53 years of age.
It’s an intriguing notion. By age fifty-something, we have accumulated essentially all the training and formal education we will ever have. By that point, we have over 30 years of experience. But perhaps more importantly, we have reached an age in our lives when our destiny is more clear. As we approach retirement, we take things less seriously, we become more bold in our thinking, and, at last, we give ourselves permission to say what’s really on our minds. We are primed for a creative explosion.
The two thirds point is your life may be when you have the most energy, the most wisdom, and the most motivation to make your ultimate contribution to humanity. It’s time to let it all hang out, damn the torpedoes, and create that ultimate statement that says to the world, “You can go to hell. I was right all along!” A creativity orgasm of sorts.
No doubt there are domains where the Golden Ratio doesn’t hold. A rule of thumb for mathematicians, for example, suggests they must publish their most significant work before age thirty or they’ll never ascend to major status. For some professions, it might be the other way around. Priests, for example, may be at their best well after age 60.
The more vexing question is: what do I do once I’ve passed the two thirds point in my life? Is it “all downhill from here?” Can you cope with the idea that you will never be as creative as you were before?
I offer this advice. First, creativity is not the only activity that adds value and fulfillment to one’s life. Consider teaching, mentoring, or any activity that transfers your life’s accumulated wisdom to the next generation.
Second, never give up. Systematic methods of creativity can turn you into a “creativity machine” regardless of your age. Learn them, perfect them, and practice them avidly. In doing so, you will make the world a better place…and you may find a new creative peak.
 
(First appeared on Psychology Today, February 3, 2014)
 

The Creativity Method of The Beatles

Published date: February 10, 2014 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

“As usual, for these co-written things, John often had just the first verse, which was always enough:  it was the direction, it was the signpost and it was the inspiration for the whole song.  I hate the word but it was the template.”  –  Paul McCartney
Fifty years ago on Feb. 9, 1964, the Beatles made their first appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” A record 73 million people watched that night. And the rest, of course, is history.

The Beatles were innovators, and they did it systematically using templates. The Beatles were corporate innovators who created immense fortunes for their shareholders. They used structured methods, experimentation, and technology the same way Fortune 500 companies create new products and services.

According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles have sold more albums in the United States than any other artist. In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked them number one in its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, and four of their albums appeared in the top ten of the magazine’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list. The Beatles’ innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today. The Beatles were collectively included in Time magazine’s list of The Most Important People of the 20th Century. 

How were they so effective?

The Beatles practiced team innovation. John Lennon and Paul McCartney are the most successful musical collaboration in history. One would sketch an idea or a song fragment and take it to the other to finish or improve; in some cases, two incomplete songs or song ideas that each had worked on individually would be combined into a complete song. Often one of the pair would add a middle eight or bridge section to the other’s verse and chorus. Lennon called it “Writing eyeball-to-eyeball” and “Playing into each other’s noses”. They applied these templates in a disciplined, structured way to create a stream of hit songs.

The Beatles were experimenters.  David Thurmaier writes:

Above all, the Beatles remained curious about all types of music, and they continually reinvented their own music by injecting it with fresh influences from multiple cultures. This experimentation adds a dimension to their work that separates it from their contemporaries’ music. In the second volume of his book The Beatles as Musicians, Walter Everett explains that “rock musicians’ interest in Indian sounds multiplied rapidly” after George Harrison introduced the Indian sitar to the song “Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown).” Also, the string quartet on 1965’s “Yesterday” would make its way into the music of other groups around the same time. This exchange of musical innovations worked both ways; for example, the Beatles were able to take elements from Bob Dylan’s music and meld them into their own. Their relentless experimentation and questing for the “new” is one strong element that makes the Beatles’ music attractive and rewarding for study and enjoyment.

The Beatles loved technology. They innovated songs and the way they produced songs. They used a wide range of techniques in the studio to differentiate their sound including guitar feedback, classical musicians on popular albums, artificial double tracking, close miking of acoustic instruments, sampling, direct injection, synchronizing tape machines, and backwards tapes. The recording process was summed up by Paul McCartney: “We would say, ‘Try it. Just try it for us. If it sounds crappy, OK, we’ll lose it. But it might just sound good.’ We were always pushing ahead: louder, further, longer, more, different.”

Oddly, McCartney seemed uncomfortable using templates to write songs.  Perhaps using a template seemed like cheating, making him feel less creative. This is a fallacy about creativity and creative people. My sense is that creative people in any field use a template of some sort. How could creative people like Robert Frost, Shakespeare, da Vinci, and Disney continue to pour out masterful work over and over? Like the Beatles, they used templates. It gave them the direction, the signpost, and the inspiration to apply their creative mind in a structured, systematic way.

Many have studied and commented on the contributions of The Beatles and the lessons learned. And in the end, it was their prolific use of structured innovation templates that made their contributions possible.

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.