Uncategorized

Teaching Children the S.I.T. Method

My seventh-grade son asked me to volunteer at his school to teach something nonacademic and fun, like how to rollerblade, bake cookies, and so on. I called the school and asked if I could teach a course called “How to Be an Inventor.” I had taught Systematic Inventive Thinking in many innovation workshops for about four years at that point, so I was confident I could deliver a fun and useful program for kids.
To my surprise, the school administrators said no.
I was dumbfounded. I thought the school would welcome a minicourse on creativity. I asked why. They insisted it was impossible to teach someone, especially kids, how to be an inventor. They were worried that the course would set too high an expectation and that I would “break the children’s little hearts.” Like most people, the administrators were stuck on the idea that creativity is a gift that some have and some don’t.
After long negotiations, the school finally agreed to let me teach my course. Ten kids signed up, all seventh and eighth graders. For five weeks, one hour each week, I taught them the same innovation techniques that you learned in this book. I taught them exactly the way I teach adults, except that I used examples kids would find interesting.
The last class was their “final exam.” Each child went to the chalkboard, and I gave each one a common household product: a coat hanger, a flashlight, a watch, a shoe, and so on. None of the children had advance knowledge of the object he or she would be receiving. For the next thirty minutes, each child was to apply to his or her product one of the five innovation techniques learned in class. Their goal was to transform the ordinary object into a new-to-the-world invention, draw a picture of it on the chalkboard, and explain how they had used their technique to create it.
The first presenter was Morgan, seventh grade. She had been assigned a wire coat hanger—a simple, one-piece device with no moving parts. For most people, this exercise would have been very intimidating because a coat hanger seems too simple and mundane to innovate. But not Morgan! Using the Attribute Dependency technique (chapter 6), she invented a coat hanger that expands up or down or sideways depending on the size and weight of the coat hung on it.
Next was Nicole. She had been given a white Keds sneaker that I borrowed from my wife for the class. She’d also used Attribute Dependency to create a shoe with a sole that matched the user’s activity or weather conditions. “I invented a shoe where the bottom can be changed depending on whether you are dancing or bowling, or maybe when it rains or snows,” she explained. As with Morgan’s invention, it was new, useful, and surprising.
And so it went, right down the line, with one child after another using systematic creativity to offer up a new invention. I was very relieved to know that I wasn’t going to be breaking any little hearts.
At the end of class, I held a graduation ceremony. I awarded the students certificates pronouncing that they were officially inventors. They were to go out into the world and create many new, awesome inventions. They had huge smiles on their faces. (So did I.)
It was time to pack up and leave as the class was over, or so I thought. As I was walking out of the classroom and down the hallway, I turned and noticed the children following me. I picked up the pace a bit because I wanted to get home. They picked up the pace too and stayed right in step with me. Then Nicole, nearly running at this point, shouted out, “Drew, Drew! I have another idea: a shoe that expands as your foot grows.”
Nicole and the others couldn’t turn it off ! Their little minds were still working in high gear even though the course was over.
I have since taught the method to third and fourth graders in the Wyoming City Schools in Cincinnati. When applying the Multiplication technique, one of the students, Sam, followed my instructions to the letter. As before, I had given each student an actual product to work on, and I had given Sam a bright red University of Cincinnati umbrella. Dutifully, he created an umbrella with two handles: one in the usual place, and one on top of the umbrella, at the tip (the Multiplication technique, chapter 4). As the standard part of our methodology, I asked Sam, “Now, who in the world would want an umbrella with a handle at the bottom and another handle at the top? Why would that be beneficial?”
Sam thought about it for a minute. Then he jutted his arm into the air, screaming wildly, “Ooh, Ooh, I know! I know exactly why you would want it!” I held my breath. Sam said, “If the wind blows your umbrella inside out, all you have to do is turn it around, grab the other handle, and start using it again!”
 
 
Copyright 2015 Drew Boyd

Innovation Sighting: Attribute Dependency and World Population

Published date: February 16, 2015 в 11:17 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

What if countries were sized proportional to their population? What would the world look like? Take a look at this map (reported by NPR.org):
It’s a nice example of the Attribute Dependency Technique, one of five in the innovation method called Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT). It’s a great tool to make products and services that are “smart.” They adjust and learn, then adapt their performance to suit the needs of the user. Attribute Dependency accounts for the majority of innovative products and services, according to research conducted by my co-author, Dr. Jacob Goldenberg.
Reddit user TeaDranks created this cartogram by creating a dependency between a country’s size and population. Each square represents 500,000 people.
To see more examples of Attribute Dependency with world maps, visit the website Worldmapper. It has “hundreds of cartograms, showing countries sized by everything from the number of books published or tractors working to condom use by men or woman.”
To get the most out of the Attribute Dependency Technique, follow these steps:
1. List internal/external variables.
2. Pair variables (using a 2 x 2 matrix)
Internal/internal
Internal/external
3. Create (or break) a dependency between the variables.
4. Visualize the resulting virtual product.
5. Identify potential user needs.
6. Modify the product to improve it.
 
 
 

Creating New Products With The Division Technique

Published date: February 9, 2015 в 3:00 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 “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.

Why Super Bowl Commercials Are So Effective

Published date: February 2, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Super Bowl commercials capture our attention because they tend to be highly creative and well-produced. At around $4 million dollars for a thirty second spot, Super Bowl advertisers need to create the best, most innovative commercials possible. To do that, they use patterns. Professor Jacob Goldenberg and his colleagues discovered that 89% of 200 award winning ads fall into a few simple, well-defined design structures. Their book, “Cracking the Ad Code,” defines eight of these structures and provides a step-by-step approach to use them.

Here are the eight tools:
1. Unification
2. Activation
3. Metaphor
4. Subtraction
5. Extreme Consequence
6. Extreme Effort
7. Absurd Alternative
8. Inversion

Let’s see how the 2015 Super Bowl ads fit these patterns.
The Unification Tool uses components of the medium or within the environment of the advertisement to convey the message. This McDonald’s commercial does a nice job of taking actual customers and making them part of the message:


The Activation Tool gets the viewer to make a physical or mental interaction with the ad. Here is an example from Discover Card. It gets your heart pounding!

The Metaphor Tool fuses or manipulates a recognizable symbol to convey the message. The All Nature Burger from Carl’s Jr. uses a provocative metaphor of a naked woman to convey this:

The Subtraction Tool removes elements that one would consider essential to the message. It works well because the human mind tends to fill in the missing elements automatically. Here is a commercial from Nationwide and the “disappearing” Mindy:

The Extreme Consequence Tool conveys the absurd result of using the product or service. It works because it is memorable and vivid. The commercial for Mountain Dew’s Kickstart does it well:

The Extreme Effort Tool conveys the attractiveness of the product or service by the extremes one must go through to use it. The Bud Light Pac Man commercial really sells it:

The Absurd Alternative Tool shows an exaggerated alternative to using the product or service as way to highlight its main benefit. Here is an example from T-Mobile and the Data Scavenger:

Finally, The Inversion Tool conveys what would happen if you didn’t have the product or service, but in an extreme way. As with the other tools in the “Extreme” family of tools, it tries to create ads that are  vivid, memorable, and surprising. My favorite is from Mophie about what happens when God runs out of battery power on his smartphone. Oh my!

New Tricks for Old Dogs: The Task Unification Technique in Surgery

Dr. Steven Palter’s patient began to cry. Not because of the sharp pain that suddenly shot through her abdomen—after years of suffering she was used to that—but from sheer and utter relief. The Yale University fertility specialist had precisely isolated the physical source of his patient’s chronic pelvic pain (CPP). “We got it!” Dr. Palter said elatedly, and immediately released the pressure he’d put on the spot inside her abdomen. “And we couldn’t have found it without you,” he told the woman. For years, she’d been in constant agony that prevented her from sleeping, holding a job, or maintaining even the semblance of a normal family life.
After the patient and Dr. Palter together had identified the location and source of her pain, the doctor made a “conscious pain map.” Immediately thereafter, Dr. Palter used this map to guide his surgery on his patient, using a laser to precisely remove the diseased tissue he could not see with his naked eye alone, finally relieving the woman from the endless rounds of physician referrals, diagnostic tests, and failed treatments.
Dr. Palter and his patient had embarked on a new kind of surgery called conscious pain mapping. As a member of the surgical team, it was the patient who identified the area of pathology.
This particular patient was extraordinarily lucky to have found Dr. Palter. Although 20 percent of women suffer from CPP at some point in their lives—with one of every ten outpatient referrals to gynecological specialists due to this condition—only 60 percent of cases are diagnosed accurately. Even fewer are treated successfully. Most CPP sufferers find their lives altered irrevocably because of the severity of the pain, and many struggle to cope with depression on top of the physical anguish.
CPP has also long frustrated physicians. Although some doctors have suspected that factors such as endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome can cause CPP, it has always been difficult to make a definitive diagnosis. Seemingly diseased tissue would prove benign and vice versa. And without such a diagnosis, CPP is nearly impossible to treat.
Or was. Until Dr. Palter had his idea.
Before Dr. Palter’s innovation, the gold standard diagnostic tool had been laparoscopy. This involves inserting a small video camera through a small incision in a patient’s abdominal wall to get an internal view of her ligaments, fallopian tubes, small and large bowels, pelvic sidewalls, and the uppermost portion of the uterus, or fundus. But since CPP pain occurs often in seemingly normal tissue, it frequently can’t be detected using visual clues alone (the wrong color, unusual spots or texture, and so on). Therefore, laparoscopy results are at best ambiguous, can be a waste of time, and, at worst, lead to the removal of normal tissue that isn’t even responsible for the pain.
Dr. Palter decided to systematically map the inside of a patient’s abdomen by physically touching one spot after another until the patient felt pain. Once he isolated the spot, he could surgically remove the problematic tissue—and end the patient’s suffering once and for all.
What makes Dr. Palter’s process remarkable is that he performs it while the patient is awake and alert on the operating table. Laparoscopy is usually performed under general anesthesia, which knocks the patient out, and so the doctor must interpret the findings without her input. Given that CPP is a condition that is felt rather than seen, this has always significantly handicapped physicians. By using the patient’s own feedback to help with the diagnosis, Dr. Palter solved a medical challenge that has baffled doctors for generations.
Why did it take so long for someone to come up with this idea? In hindsight, Dr. Palter’s solution seems almost ludicrously obvious. He didn’t develop any new technologies. Nor did he take advantage of innovative drugs, or apply the findings of recent research studies. Dr. Palter made this creative leap using only existing tools and ideas.
As it turns out, Dr. Palter’s achievement is a perfect example of the creativity tool we call Task Unification. As with the other techniques, Task Unification allows you to routinely and systematically be creative by narrowing—or constraining—your options for solving a problem. You simply force an existing feature (or component) in a process or product to work harder by making it take on additional responsibilities. You unify tasks that previously worked independently of one another. In Dr. Palter’s new CPP treatment, for example, the patient is both patient and diagnostic tool. By unifying two tasks—requiring the patient to undergo the procedure and help detect the source of her abdominal pain—he achieved a creative breakthrough while staying well inside the proverbial box.
 
Copyright 2015 Drew Boyd

Innovation Sighting: Kitchen Ovens Using S.I.T.

Published date: January 12, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

As a teacher, it’s always rewarding to see my students create ideas that eventually make it into the marketplace. Here are some great innovations for the kitchen oven that a group of students created last year, January 2014. Later, we’ll compare these to the new innovations announced by Whirlpool at the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show.
1. SIT Technique: Task Unification / Multiplication – “A range that is also your recipe”.
BacksplashDescription: A “smart” range provides you access to a database full of real-time digital cooking classes and assists with temperatures and timing to help you master complex recipes. Weight sensors ensure just the right ingredients are taken. Diabetic, healthy, authentic Indian and Italian modes (and countless others) help you master every style!  Think you have the chops to create a truly unique recipe? The Kitchen Coach also works in reverse, capturing and recording settings, ingredients, & portions that made your dish amazing. Share your success with your friends through social media, so they to can enjoy your meal
2. SIT Technique: Division – “Divide the control panel off the oven.” Attribute Dependency Change – “As your dinner circumstances change, your cooking mode changes.”
RemoteDescription: The Masterchef Smart Remote equipped stove features a user interface  that can be removed entirely and conveniently relocated to anywhere in your home or kitchen, to help you keep watch of your dish’s vital statistics anywhere you are  The Masterchef Social Timer informs Entertainers as to gaps in heating and stirring, to facilitate chef mingling, and allows for oven settings to be defined by a moving-target meal time.
3. SIT Technique: Subtraction – “A range with no grates”
Range topDescription: An oven range with no grates or exposed conduits – a large flat surface like any other counter top that, unlike a glass-top oven, can also serve as a kitchen island or bar, even while in use.  Non demarcated range space allows for cooled storage bins to live under breaks in the Island’s low profile griddle top. No longer must the range top be a no-mans-land on your counter.  No longer must the chef toil tirelessly in the kitchen, alone, while the party keeps its distance.  Made for entertainers, this kitchen island-sized griddle top is divided into quadrants.  Use all 4 quadrants and you have a Benihana-style theater of stir-fry.
These are just a few of the many in the students’ Dream Catalog project for this course. Click to download the entire catalog.
Now let’s take a look at what industy giant, Whirlpool, announed at the 2015 CES, a full year after the students developed their ideas using SIT.

Congratulations to my students, Jared Gosnell, Dave Heyne, Qi Jiang, and Eva Lutz for innovating the future!

Innovation Sighting: The Fusion of Design Thinking and the Task Unification Technique

Published date: January 5, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Combining Systematic Inventive Thinking with Design Thinking yields wonderful innovations. SIT brings a way to create ideas systematically while Design Thinking brings a way to articulate those ideas in an intuitive, appealing way.
Take the Task Unification Technique, for example. It’s one of five in the SIT method. Task Unification works by taking an existing resource in the immediate vicinity of where a product is being used and assigning it an additional task. It yields innovative ideas that are clever and deceptively simple. Add Design Thinking to them and you get pure magic. You’ll recognize these types of ideas when you find yourself slapping your forehead and saying, “Gee, why didn’t I think of that?”
Here are some great examples from the recent Red Dot Awards. See if you can figure out which component has been “unified” with what new “job.”
Tennis Picker:
Racket
Bow Tie Bottle:
Bottle
Fire Hammer:
Fire
 
Bicycle Saddle:
Bike
To get the most out of the Task Unification technique, you follow five basic steps:
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, using one of three methods:

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

3. Visualize the new (or changed) products or services.
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 the new product or service is valuable, then ask: Is it feasible? Can you actually create these new products? Perform these new services? Why or why not? Is there any way to refine or adapt the idea to make it viable?

Five Industries Ripe for Innovation

Published date: December 30, 2014 в 10:54 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

The economic outlook for 2015 is, by most accounts, “slightly better than 2014.” That, of course, depends on what industry you’re in. For some, that outlook could be a lot better with an injection of good, old fashioned innovation. Here is my short list of five industries most ripe for innovation in 2015.
1. Commercial Aerospace: I may be biased because I’ve worked in this industry, but I’ve always considered the aerospace industry the most complicated and difficult of any. Think about the conditions that airlines, for example, work under. They’re heavily regulated, union intensive, recession sensitive, fiercely competitive, fuel price sensitive, and operationally complex. Putting thousands of full airplanes safely in the sky everyday is no small feat. And it’s not just the airlines that face challenges. The aircraft and engine manufacturers like Airbus and GE face enormous technology and business risk when building new equipment.
It’s these challenges that make the aerospace industry ripe for innovation. Tight constraints are a necessary condition for creativity, and this industry has it more than any. We should expect a significant focus on innovation from this sector next year, especially in creating many small, incremental innovations rather than seeking the big disruptors.
2. Pharmaceutical: The pharma industry has many of the same attributes as aerospace in terms of the regulatory scrutiny and long lead time development risks. But this industry has been turned upside down by a series of independent events. Changes in how new drugs are discovered, the shift to generics, the move to personalized medicine, and the shrinking pipeline have conspired to create the “perfect storm” for this industry. Drug companies are moving past just hoping for a billion dollar, blockbuster drug to save them. They need to find relevance beyond the prescribers and pharmacies that dispense their products.
We should expect to see big pharma companies innovate across the entire value chain, from pill manufacturing all the way into the patient’s home. Big brands what to become a household name, not just an clinical industry name.
3. Food: Pressure on this industry isn’t just from the FDA and other regulators. Consumers are on high alert like never before about what they put in their mouths. It’s not hard to see why. The obesity epidemic has tainted our image of sugar, once thought of as sweet, but now seen as deadly and addictive. Constant media reports about food poisoning and listeria outbreaks make consumers nervous and suspicious. Changing consumer trends in taste and ingredients create a moving target for ingredient makers and food processors. Even Bill Gates has weighed in on the need for innovation in this industry, noting that our approach to food hasn’t changed much over the last 100 years. “It’s ripe for innovation.”
I expect to see the big food companies like Kraft and Cambell’s step up their innovation efforts in everything from manufacturing lines, packaging, and retailing. Like the pharma companies, they need to bring more relevance to the consumer once the product reaches the home.
4. Higher Education: Like aerospace, this industry is a hot button for me because I’m in it. Universities are under constant scrutiny, from outside and from within, about the many challenges they face. Type into Google, “the problem with universities” and you’ll get 200 million results. What’s interesting about this industry is how long it’s been around, how well understood the problems are, yet how difficult it is to make progress. The university model faces issues around the tenure system, the role of a university in terms research versus teaching, and most importantly, relevance – are universities producing the right product for our society, or have they become so insular and out of touch in preparing students?
We should expect to see more innovation outside of the university model that will put pressure to change inside. New educational models, social learning, corporate learning resources, and revised expectations of the consumer about college and its costs will isolate universities to the brink of change.
5. Consulting: Consultants can be their own worst enemy in forgetting to take care of their own business model while working to improve their client’s. As with the other ripe industries, market forces are causing cracks in the seams of this one, too. The biggest change is transparency. Consulting firms used to live behind a shroud of brand reputation, where executive selected a consultant to reduce risk to their own stock. Now clients want to see more of what goes on inside, and it is changing the way they hire consultant, pay them, and use them. Customers don’t want to pay too much for features they don’t value, especially when they have unprecedented access to the same information and Big Data as the consultants.
We should expect consulting firms to innovate new ways to deliver faster results, and to take more accountability for those results.
Bring on 2015!
 
 
Copyright 2014 Drew Boyd

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

    No thanks, not now.