Посты с тэгом: systematic creativity

The Division Technique: Cut Your Challenges Down to Size

Published date: April 11, 2016 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

The division technique works by dividing a product or its components functionally or physically and then rearranging them back into the product. Division is a powerful technique in the SIT Method because it forces you to break fixedness, especially structural fixedness. Division forces you to create configurations by rearranging components in ways you were not likely to have done on with on your own.
To apply the division technique, you start by listing the product’s internal components. Next, you divide the product or one of the components. There are three ways you can do this.
First is functionally, where you rearrange along some functional role. Look at this example. A water sport company took the controls of the speed boat and then functionally divided them off and placed them into the handle of the waterski tow rope. Now, the water skier controls the movements of the boat without having a separate driver.
Next is physically, where you are cutting the product or component along any physical line. Physical division is different than functional in that we are actually making a cut along some physical line of the product itself or component.
RadioTake a look at this car radio. In this example, the faceplate has been physically cut away from the main radio. When you leave your car, you grab the faceplate by pulling it away from the main radio, and taking it with you. That makes the main radio completely worthless so thieves won’t break into your car to steal it.
And the third type is called preserving. That means you divide the product into smaller versions of itself. Each smaller unit preserves the characteristics of the whole. A real simple example of this is what you see here. Cupcakes are essentially smaller versions of a normal sized cake. Cupcakes
Many food manufacturers use this technique by taking a normal full-size product and then cutting it down into smaller individual portions. These smaller units have just the right amount of food needed by the customer. This saves them money, the product is easier to store, there’s less wasted food, and it gives the manufacturer more ways to sell its products.
So once you’ve rearranged the components, this now becomes your virtual product. Using function follows form, you visualize the virtual product. Then you identify potential benefits and target markets. Finally, you modify and adapt the concept to improve it.
The division technique cuts your biggest challenges down to size so you can see new innovative opportunities.
 

Innovation Sighting: Putting Space Aliens to Work

Published date: March 14, 2016 в 1:30 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

The Task Unification Technique is one of five in the SIT methodology, and it produces remarkable clever ideas – the ones that make you slap your forehead and say, “Gee, why didn’t I think of that?”
Task Unification is defined as: assigning an additional task to an existing resource. That resource should be in the immediate vicinity of the problem, or what we call The Closed World. In essence, it’s taking something that is already around you and giving an additional job.
Here’s a great example of how to find aliens by using a rather resource – the aliens themselves. As reported in the Christian Science Monitor:

A new study suggests that perhaps we should be looking for aliens who are looking for us in the hope of finding each other and communicating.
The idea is to flip our current approach around. NASA’s Kepler spacecraft has discovered more than 1,000 exoplanets by watching for the light of a star to dim as an orbiting planet passes by. Scientists now suggest that we target worlds that could use that same method to spot us in a new paper to be published in the journal Astrobiology.
Here’s how it would work: Earth can be detected using the same methods from only a small strip of space. The dimming of our Sun as our planet passes by could only be spotted from what’s called Earth’s “transit zone.” And that region boasts some 100,000 potential alien habitats.
So if they’re there and they’re looking for us, perhaps they’ve broadcast a signal in an attempt to get in touch with us. And if we listen, we may discover each other.
“The key point of this strategy is that it confines the search area to a very small part of the sky. As a consequence, it might take us less than a human life span to find out whether or not there are extraterrestrial astronomers who have found the Earth. They may have detected Earth’s biogenic atmosphere and started to contact whoever is home,” Dr. Heller explained in another press release.

I love this idea because it is using the object of your efforts as the solution. In our book, Inside the Box, we describe a similar innovation on how to get rid of tsetse flies by using male flies that have been sterilized so they can’t reproduce. Eventually, the whole colony disappears.
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?
 

Great Innovators Embrace Resistance, Not Fight It

Published date: January 4, 2016 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

Imagine your marketing team comes up with an idea for a great new product. You absolutely love it. But when you start shopping the idea around the building, you get some very strange looks from people. People are resisting the idea, and you and your team are getting frustrated. Resistance to innovation is a natural phenomena in companies, and it can become a huge challenge unless you manage it correctly.
Why do people resist new ideas? As you’ll see in a minute, there are lots of reasons. But before I dive into them, let’s first understand that resistance is necessary. That’s right. Necessary. Here’s why.
First, innovation and resistance cannot be separated. In a real sense, they help define each other. After all, something’s not really innovative unless it meets with at least some resistance. Think of resistance as a gatekeeper. All adoption of new ideas starts with resistance, and think of resistance as an important filter to get to the best ideas.
That said, it must be addressed if progress is to happen. You, as the leader, have two important roles to play. First, see yourself as a Resistance Maker. When new ideas are brought to you, it’s okay to question it, bring up challenges, and so on. But you also have to serve as a Resistance Breaker, someone who works within the company to knock down the barriers and cause adoption of the new idea. Let’s understand the sources of innovation.
Resistance comes from three domains: characteristics of the innovation itself, characteristics of the resistor/adopter, and characteristics of the innovator, meaning you or the person selling the idea.
By characteristics of the innovation, I mean the factors of the idea itself that make people resist it. For example, what value does it bring, how risky is the idea, how compatible it is with your current products and services? Can the idea be tested, preferably in stages, and can we back out it if needed? How complex is the idea, and can it be communicated clearly? Sometimes people resist ideas because they just don’t get it. Finally, is there flexibility to change the idea, how long will it take to realize the benefits, and will the idea have some unintended side effects on other projects? In the exercise files for this course, you’ll find a handy checklist and definitions for all of these factors.
Resistance can also arise because of certain personality traits of the resistor/adopter. I call them that because we all start as resistors to a new idea, even if just a tiny bit before adopting it.
These traits include how much they perceive the benefits and risks, how motivated they are to change, and their attitude and experience with previous innovations. If they had a bad experience with the last idea, they’re going to be more resistant to the next one. Another trait that can affect how reistive they are is their own ability to generate highly creative ideas. The poorer they are at innovating, the less likely they’ll be open to new ideas.
Resistance can also arise depending on who you are as the person selling the idea. If you’re seen as credible and as someone who explains ideas clearly and informatively, you’ll meet with less resistance.
Your job as the Resistance Breaker is to understand the strongest sources of resistance and to find ways to lower the effect. Don’t try to tackle every source, just the ones that matter and that can be changed. If you do, you’ll find that next great idea winning in the marketplace.
To learn more, read Resistance to Innovation: It’s Sources and Manifestations (University of Chicago Press, 2015) by  Shaul Oreg and Jacob Goldenberg

Eight Years of Blogging at Innovation in Practice

Published date: December 21, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

This month marks the eight year anniversary of Innovation in Practice. As always, I want to thank my many readers and supporters who follow it.
When you start blogging, you’re never quite sure who will read it and continue reading it. A fellow innovation blogger told me not to worry about. “Blog it, and they will come,” is what he said. In essence, readers self-select based on their interest in the topic. I can’t control it.
That said, I’ve learned a lot in the last eight years, and I see predictable patterns in the types of people who find me here and contact me about speaking engagements. They are:

  • Strategy/Innovation Leaders: executives who are looking to make transformational change in their business
  • Technical/R&D Leaders: executives who are driven to fill their product pipeline
  • Commercial Leaders: marketing executives who need to strengthen their franchise vis-a-vis their colleague’s franchises
  • HR/Leadership Training Leaders: HR executives or consultants who want to embed innovation in their programs
  • Meeting Planners: people who source talent for a wide variety of programs

My goal is to make this blog different from other innovation blogs and websites. Instead of focusing on why innovation is important, I focus on how innovation happens.  The themes of this blog are:

  • Innovation can be learned like any other skill such as marketing, leadership, or playing the guitar.  To be an innovator, learn a method.Teach it to others.
  • Innovation must be linked to strategy. Innovation for innovation’s sake doesn’t matter. Innovation that is guided by strategy or helps guide strategy yields the most opportunity for corporate growth.
  • Innovation is a two-way phenomena. We can start with a problem and innovate solutions. Or we can generate hypothetical solutions and explore problems that they solve. To be a great innovator, you need to be a two-way innovator.
  • The corporate perspective, where innovation is practiced day-to-day, is what must be understood and kept at the center of attention. This is where truth is separated from hype.

I’m expecting 2016 to be another strong year in terms of keynotes, workshops, and training programs. My marketing and PR team are going to completely re-position the “Drew Boyd” brand in terms of a new website, design, and messaging. It’s an exciting project, to be launched in the first quarter.
The book, Inside the Box, is now in fifteen languages and continues to sell well globally. As of now, I have three additional book projects lined up with some amazingly-talented co-authors. Four more video courses will be added to my lynda.com lineup. Now that LinkedIn owns lynda.com, the viewership of my courses has skyrocketed.
And the biggest news for 2016 is…the launch of our new web app – Innovate! Inside the Box, a software tool that helps you use the SIT Innovation Method. Today, we have an iPad version of the app, but this new app will be browser-based so you’ll be able to access from any Internet-connected appliance. STAY TUNED!
I want to thank Jacob, as well as Amnon Levav, Yoni Stern, and the entire team at SIT LLC. I thank Marta Dapena-Baron at Big Picture Partners, Bob Cialdini and the team at Influence at Work, Yury Boshyk at Global Executive Learning, the Washington Speakers Bureau, the team at Lynda.com, Jim Levine, Emilie D’Agostino, Shelley Bamburger, the team at Wordsworth Communications, and my fellow faculty at the UC Lindner College of Business.
Drew

Structural Fixedness: A Barrier to Creativity

Published date: October 19, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Imagine you’re driving down the highway, and you notice a flag waving in the distance. But something’s not right. The flag is upside down. You’d notice it right away because it’s not in its usual position that you have seen hundreds of times before.
We all have this tendency to notice things that are out of order. We have an innate sense of how things are structured, and it helps us make sense of the world around us. But this sense of structure is also a barrier to creativity. Here’s an example:
Take a look at this and tell me, which is the odd one out? Do you see it?
1) 17
2) 19
3) 13
If you’re like most people, you selected one of the three numbers you see here: 17, 19, or 13.
But I want you to step back from the problem and see it in a different light. Now, I want you to consider all the numbers on the page, including the ones on the left side – 1, 2 and 3.
Now, out of these six numbers, which one is the odd one out? You should have no difficulty seeing that the number 2 is the only even number on the page. It’s truly the odd one out.
But why do people have such a difficult time seeing the number 2 as part of the set of numbers? It’s because we all have another type of fixedness called structural fixedness. Like functional fixedness, it’s a cognitive bias. It blocks us from considering other structures than what we’re used to.
Look back at our list of numbers. We’re so used to seeing a list with numbers and parenthesis that we treat the numbers behind the parenthesis differently. We have this structure so fixed in our mind, we don’t consider other configurations.
Structural fixedness makes it hard to imagine different configurations of a product or service that could deliver new benefits to the marketplace. This type of fixedness is a big concern with services and processes, because they tend to happen in a fixed sequence, one step after another. Without a way to break fixedness, we’re prevented from seeing new creative options.
The good news is that you can break structural fixedness just like you do functional fixedness. You do it with one of the five techniques of Systematic Inventive Thinking.
One in particular, the Division Technique, is your tool of choice.
 
 
Check out all of my courses.

Innovation Sighting: The Task Unification Technique for Young and Old

Published date: September 28, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

The Task Unification Technique is great because it generates novel ideas that tend to be novel and resourceful. It’s one of five techniques in the SIT Innovation Method.
Task Unification is defined as: assigning an additional task to an existing resource. That resource should be in the immediate vicinity of the problem, or what we call The Closed World. In essence, it’s taking something that is already around you and giving an additional job.
Here are two great examples, one about a very young person and the other about a new and nifty device for old people. I love both of them:


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?
 

Innovation Sighting: Adjustable Airline Seats

Published date: August 17, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Here’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.
From Fox News:

The airline legroom wars may finally be coming to an end.
Engineering firm B/E Aerospace has filed a patent for a “legroom adjustable” seat design that allows flight attendants to move a seat forward or back depending on the size of a passenger, reports the Telegraph.
The seats, which all have moveable wheels, sit on rail tracks lining the aircraft floor. If a taller man or woman is seated in front of a child, for example, the cabin crew will have the ability to move an occupant’s seat several inches back via smartphone or tablet, allowing for extra legroom.
“While passengers come in many sizes, children, adolescents, adults, men, women and with large height differentials within these categories, seat spacing in the main cabin of passenger aircraft is generally uniform except at exit rows,” the designers stated in their patent application, submitted in November.
“The one size fits all seating arrangement can cause discomfort for tall passengers, while a child or relatively small adult may be seated in an identical seat at the seat pitch, with more than ample leg room and in relative comfort.”
The legroom adjustable seat, however, leaves the final spatial arrangement to the discretion of crewmembers, not individual passengers.
“Even a relatively small incremental increase in seat spacing for the tall passengers can provide additional comfort with no loss of comfort to the much smaller passengers seated in front of the tall passengers,” B/E Aerospace said.

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.

The Attribute Dependency Technique: Three Ways to Create Smart Products

Published date: June 15, 2015 в 11:03 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

When using the Attribute Dependency technique, you’ll reach a point in the function follows form process where it’s time to make adaptations to your concept. That’s where you try to improve the concept and put more definition around it.
One way to make adaptations with Attribute Dependency is to change the type of dependency. There are three ways to do it: passive, active and automatic. Think of these as what has to happen within the product or service for the dependency to take place. Let’s look at each type.
Mixing bowlsPassive dependencies, just as the name implies, are passive. Nothing has to happen for the dependency to take place. There doesn’t need to be an intervening element to cause the dependency.
Look around and you will see that many products and services are examples of passive dependency. Here is a simple example of mixing bowls that come in different sizes.
Now you may ask, “Is this really an example of the attribute dependency pattern?” It certainly is. As one thing changes another thing changes. In this case, as the needs of the user change, the size of the bowl changes. It’s a passive dependency, though, because the bowls simply exist in various sizes and shapes. In fact, any product that comes in different sizes such as clothing, hardware items, even homes are examples of passive attribute dependency.
Happy hourBut some dependencies require an active, intervening element to cause them to occur.  A very simple example is Happy Hour, when the price of drinks in a bar is reduced. But for this to happen, somebody has to do something. That active element, of course, is the bartender. At the appointed happy hour, let’s say 5 o’clock, the bartender simply lowers the price of the drinks presumably for an hour. Then again at 6 o’clock, the bartender raises those prices back to their normal level. Because of the active intervention, we call this an active dependency.
And finally, we have automatic dependencies. These are unique because they happen, as the name implies, automatically. The product or service is designed so that as one thing changes, the product automatically changes by itself without some intervening third-party element to make that change.
Transition sunglasses are one of the best examples of an automatic dependency. As the brightness of the light changes, the lens automatically darkens in response to that change.
Products that have this type of dependency seem almost smart. They know when it’s appropriate to change in response to some other variable, either an internal or external. The consumer doesn’t have to do anything because the product does it all by itself.
How do you know which type of dependency to use? It depends on a lot of factors such as how much convenience you want to deliver to the customer. Is it technically feasible to create a particular dependency? For example, your engineers might be able to make a mixing bowl that automatically expands as you put more things in it. But that also adds a lot of cost and complexity. It’s probably a lot easier for the customer just to grab the right size bowl to make a cake.
It also depends on how much control you may need in a situation. Do you want the customer or another person making the change? Look back at the happy hour example. You could create a cash register that automatically adjusts the price of drinks based on the time of day. The bartender wouldn’t have to think about. You would have complete control over the prices throughout the day.
Passive, active, and automatic. That’s three ways to give your customers very cool products with the Attribute Dependency technique.
 

The Second Direction of Innovation

Published date: May 19, 2015 в 11:18 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Innovation is the process of taking an idea and putting it into practice. Creativity, on the other hand, is what you do in your head to generate the idea, an idea that meets three criteria: an innovative idea must be new, useful, and surprising. New means that no one else has done it before. Useful means that it delivers some new value for you or your customers. And surprising? It means that the market will be delighted with your latest innovation.
Most people think the way you create an idea is to start with a well-formed problem and then brainstorm a solution to it. What if you turned that around 180 degrees? It sounds counter-intuitive, but you really can innovate by starting with the solution and then work backwards to the problem.
In the Systematic Inventive Thinking method, we call it the Function Follows Form Principle. Here’s how it works. First, you start with an existing situation. That situation can be a product, it can be a service, or perhaps a process. You take that item, and you make a list of its components and attributes.
Then you apply one of the five thinking tools. They’re called subtraction, division, multiplication, task unification, and attribute dependency. I know some of these sound mathematical, but they’re really not, as you’ll see when you start applying them.
When you apply one of the five tools to the existing situation, you artificially change it. It morphs into something that, at first, might seem really weird or absurd. That’s perfectly normal. In fact, as you get more comfortable with this method, you’ll come to expect it. We consider the strange thing a virtual product. It doesn’t really exist except in one place, right up here in your mind.
This step is really important. Take your time. You have to mentally define and visualize the virtual product. I like to close my eyes and mentally see an image of the item once it’s been manipulated. As you practice the method more, this will get a lot easier.
At this stage, you ask yourself two questions, and you do it in this specific order. The first question is, “Should we do it?” Does this new configuration create any advantage or solve some problem? Is there a target audience who would find this beneficial? Does it deliver an unmet need? We call this step the market filter. It’s a filter because if you cannot identify even the tiniest benefit at this step, you throw the concept out the window. You don’t waste any more time on it. This is very different than other ideation techniques like brainstorming, where “there’s no bad idea.” Trust me, there are plenty of bad ideas, and if you realize one here, you eject it and go back and reapply the tool to generate a different concept.
If you do identify some benefit, then and only then do you ask yourself the second question, “Can we do it?” Do we have the technical know-how to make this concept? Is it feasible? Do we have the intellectual property? Are there regulatory or legal barriers? This step is the implementation filter because once again, if you have a great idea in theory but no way to make it, don’t waste any more time on it.
If you pass through both filters, you move on to the adaptation step, where you allow yourself some degree of freedom to modify the concept to make it even stronger and deliver even more value. You may have to iterate through these steps several times before you end up with what I would consider an idea.
To be a great innovator, you need to be a “two way” innovator. Learning the Function Follows Form process will help you do just that.

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

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

    No thanks, not now.