Посты с тэгом: systematic innovation

Can Blackberry Dig Themselves Out of the Hole?

Published date: November 5, 2013 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

As Albert Einstein noted, one cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. That seems to be Blackberry’s predicament as it faces another drop in its stock value. However, with a fresh investment by Fairfax Holdings and a new CEO, Blackberry may have time to reinvent its business model. The new leadership team will need to think differently. It is a perfect time to apply systematic innovation tools to create a new future.
Here’s how.
New Merger Targets:  Use the SIT technique called Subtraction to reframe and see new merger possibilities.  Make a list of the major components of the company (sales force, products, brand, employees, customers, network). Create a phrase like this: “Blackberry has no products, but it has all the other components.  What company has the ideal set of products that would best fit the remaining resources of Blackberry?”  For example, would a company in data-mining or other information-based services find synergies within the Blackberry enterprise? Companies like LexisNexis, Authernative, and Lifelock come to mind.  Continue searching for more insights by doing the same exercise for each component, one at a time.
Reverse Assumption:  Don’t just challenge assumptions. Reverse them. This technique helps “break fixedness” and see new options.  To use it, list all the obvious business assumptions about Blackberry and its industry.  For example:

  • Consumers want more functionality.
  • Blackberry is for enterprises.
  • Cellphones are the dominant form of communication.

Reverse the assumptions one by one.  “Consumers want less functionality.”  Perhaps the new business model is to create stripped down products used by a different market segment.  Perhaps Blackberry becomes a system strictly for young people, not enterprises.
Innovate in Adjacent Markets:  Apply systematic innovation methods to stretch opportunities beyond Blackberry ‘s current business model.  Ask these questions:

  • What substitute products are non-category consumers using to fulfill the need? Where are they buying it?  What complementary products go along with these substitutes?
  • What other products do loyal Blackberry customers buy, perhaps at the same price point or to fulfill the same or similar brand promise?
  • Why do multi-brand customers use several brands?  Is it time-dependent?  Situation-dependent?  Why does it vary?  What other products are used when the competitive brands are consumed?
  • What other category of products do Blackberry ‘s competitor sell?  How do those fit into their product line?  How could they fit into Blackberry’s?

Innovate the Core Competency: Blackberry cannot compete with iPhone and Google on functionality (apps) and design.  Instead, it needs to innovate around its core competency of privacy. Privacy is highly valued in today’s environment of government snooping.  The trick is to extend the idea of privacy management beyond just data and voice communications.
First, re-frame the problem as: “How do we give our customers more privacy?”  Notice the problem statement is devoid of technology, process, product, or anything that implies how to do it.  Next, apply the SIT technique called Task Unification. This technique forces you to assign an additional job to an existing resource, usually in some counterintuitive way. For example,

  • Applications:  Create a list of all key functions and applications now on a Blackberry handset such as email, phone, maps, GPS, SMS texting, weather, contacts, calendar, photos, and so on.  One by one, create a phrase like this:  “The maps function has the additional job of delivering privacy to the use.”
  • Daily Routine:  List the parts of an everyday routine:  wake-up, shower, dress, take medication, eat, drive to work, check mail, have meetings, call clients, go shopping, drive home, watch TV, eat dinner, go to bed.  One by one, take each activity in the day and make the statement:  “Blackberry gives me privacy about (fill in the blank).”
  • Entities: Create a list of people and organizations you want to keep out of your affairs: family members, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, government, banks, employers, stores, churches, and so on.  Once again, take each component and create the phrase, “Blackberry will protect my privacy from (fill in the blank).”
  • Information:  List the types of information to be protected: financial, political, religious, demographic, employment, educational, relationship, etc.  One by one, create the hypothetical scenario: “Blackberry protects all my (fill in the blank) interests.”

Treat each of these phrases as a hypothetical solution and test whether it delivers a new consumer benefit.  Only then would Blackberry seek a technological approach to deliver the benefit.
Blackberry can remake itself, but the key will be to innovate its brand promise and be relevant in every part of the consumer’s life. If Blackberry focuses just on innovating its technology, it will succumb to the same thinking that got it in this mess.
 

Innovation Sighting: Bookless Public Library

Published date: September 16, 2013 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

The Subtraction Technique is amazing because of its simplicity and power. It is one of five techniques that form the core of Systematic Inventive Thinking, a method of innovating new products and services. Here is a classic example of how it can completely reframe how we see one of the most familiar of institutions – the Library.

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

  1. List the product’s or service’s internal components.
  2. Select an essential component and imagine removing it. There are two ways: a. Full Subtraction. The entire component is removed. b. Partial Subtraction. Take one of the features or functions of the component away or diminish it in some way.
  3. Visualize the resulting concept (no matter how strange it seems).
  4. What are the potential benefits, markets, and values? Who would want this new product or service, and why would they find it valuable? If you are trying to solve a specific problem, how can it help address that particular challenge? After you’ve considered the concept “as is” (without that essential component), try replacing the function with something from the Closed World (but not with the original component). You can replace the component with either an internal or external component. What are the potential benefits, markets, and values of the revised concept?
  5. If you decide that this 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 more viable?

Learn how all five techniques can help you innovate – on demand.

Inside the Box: “Oh, This Is Going to Be Addictive”

Published date: July 15, 2013 в 11:39 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

When you use Subtraction, you don’t always have to eliminate the
component. There is also what we call “Partial Subtraction.” It is a valid
technique as long as the product or service that remains delivers a new
benefit. To deploy Partial Subtraction, you pick a component and then
eliminate a specific feature of that component. Consider the case of
Twitter, a microblogging application used by hundreds of millions of
people worldwide. By simply restricting each tweet to 140 characters,
Twitter has become a vast digital conversation about what individuals
around the globe are thinking and doing. A Partial Subtraction of
the traditional blog down to 140 characters dramatically increased the
volume of and participation in this Internet phenomenon. How did it
happen?

Twitter founders Noah Glass, Jack Dorsey, and others knew that the
concept was right and that they had a potential hit on their hands. Their
intent was to create a service that allowed people to send text messages
to many friends at one time. Originally, Twitter was supposed to be only
a way for people to easily update their friends on their current status.

But when attempting to build a service with text messaging as
its foundation, the Twitter team ran into challenges. First, texts were
expensive. On top of that, phone companies imposed a limit on the
size of text messages. Any text message of more than 160 characters is
automatically split into two messages. So the first thing that the Twitter
founders did was to place a limit on the number of characters in a
short message service (SMS) text (now called a “tweet”). They Partially
Subtracted text messages by reducing the size to 140. That left room for the sender’s user name and the colon in front of the message. In February 2007, Dorsey wrote, “One could change the world with one hundred and forty characters.”

He was right. Today more than 100 million users subscribe to Twitter. The Twitter website gets more than 400 million unique visitors each month. It has become the global “listening post” when real-time events such as the March 2011 Japanese tsunami and the Egyptian revolution two months earlier are happening. Glass said in an interview, “You know what’s awesome about this thing? It makes you feel like you’re right with that person. It’s a whole emotional impact. You feel like you’re connected.”

Partial Subtraction can create just as much value as the full Subtraction Technique. Partial Subtractions have another advantage. Sometimes you can convince skeptics to do a Partial Subtraction rather than stripping out a component completely to get them on board.

The Hidden Cost of Poor Innovation Execution

Published date: February 13, 2012 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Executing and launching new products takes financial and human resources.  When poor execution delays a product launch, companies are hit with another cost, one which often goes unnoticed.  Poor execution delays the revenue stream that a new innovation will earn.  Given the time value of money, that financial loss can be staggering. Consider one of the most famous innovative product – the Post-it® Note.

3M scientist, Spencer Silver, invented a note size paper with a weak glue backing. The company saw no market application for it.  One day, Art Fry, another 3M scientist, was singing in the church choir.  Paper bookmarks kept falling out of his hymnal, so he began using the sticky notes instead.  With the weak adhesive, the notes stayed in place, yet lifted off without damaging the pages.  3M began distributing Post-it® Notes in 1980 — ten years after Silver developed the super weak adhesive.  Today, it’s one of the most popular office products available.

What if 3M cut that execution time from 10 years to 5 years?  What is the value of better/faster execution?  Let’s make some simplifying assumptions.  Assume the Post-it® Note franchise turns out $1 billion in annual revenue and nets a profit of $100 million in perpetuity. (3M’s consumer products and office division, which includes Post-it®, posted revenue of $3.47 billion in 2009 according to public financial filings.)  Using a discount rate of 5%, that yields a net present value of $2 billion.  Now what if that cash flow is delayed just five years due to poor execution.  Using the same discount rate of 5%, the new NPV is $1.6 billion, a whopping $400 million in lost cash!

Could 3M have spent money on ways to speed up the launch of the Post-it® Note?  It is certainly plausible.  Investing in market research and other experimentation might have led 3M managers to see the potential of the product sooner.  It certainly would have cost less than the $400 million lost due to slow execution.

Some might argue that execution is more important than creation, but both are necessary to succeed.  Applying systematic methods to create great ideas increases your odds of success.  Great execution is what helps your company realize the full financial value of those inventions.

 

Redeploying Your Core Competencies

Published date: January 9, 2012 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

Read this partial list of core competencies for a particular firm and try to guess what industry it is in:

  1. Consumer insights:  understanding what consumer want
  2. Design: making things easy to use
  3. Innovation: coming up with new ideas routinely
  4. Systems integration: making things work together
  5. Customer relationships: forming and maintaining customer loyalty

From this list alone, you could imagine this firm being part of virtually any industry.  In fact, the firm with these core competencies would likely be the leader of that industry.  Which company owns these skills?

In 2008, managers at Kodak cited these skills as their core competencies. Less than four years later, Kodak is on the verge of bankruptcy, ending the reign of a once proud and legendary 120 year old brand. It is now forced to sell its massive patent estate to raise operating cash.

What happened?  Many will cite the familiar reasons:  failure to innovate, slow to move into digital photography, poor execution of digital photography, and so on.  These reasons are wrong.  Kodak was a highly innovative firm.  It invented digital photography long before it wiped out its paper film business.  Kodak was a marketing powerhouse.  It could execute promotional and brand campaigns with the best of them.

Kodak faded because it failed to unpack its core competencies and redeploy a subset of them into growing markets.  When the Kodak managers listed their core competencies, the full list looked like this:

  1. Consumer insights: understanding what consumer want
  2. Design: making things easy to use
  3. Innovation: coming up with new ideas routinely
  4. Systems integration: making things work together
  5. Customer relationships: forming and maintaining customer loyalty
  6. KodakImaging science: color management, sharping, and calibration
  7. Fluid management: delivering ink and chemicals on paper
  8. Organic chemistry: deep knowledge of silver and its uses
  9. Industry reputation: strong relationships with movie studios and cinematographers
  10. Photography: “It’s in our DNA.”

With all of these skills, it is not hard to see why Kodak led the industry.  But compare the last five skills with the first five.  The last five are strictly photography oriented.  Therein lies the seeds of its demise.  Taken all together, these competencies create a strong mental framework that is hard to escape.  “It’s in our DNA!” was a direct quote from a Kodak manager.  Because of this mindset, they could not step away from those core skills deeply rooted in its business model:  using technology to create images that instill memories.  Kodak fused its core competencies too tightly to its core business of photography.

Kodak is not the only company to get stuck in its own self image.  Some other notable brands are teetering on the edge including Blackberry (RIM) and Netflix, both unable to re-position core skills to greener fields.

Kodak’s best chance of survival is to take the first five competencies on the list and enter a growth industry.  It  must leave the memories of photography behind.  Ironically, selling its patent estate to raise cash could be what Kodak needs to dissolve its photographic legacy and move on.

Are You More Innovative Than You Think?

Published date: October 17, 2011 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

You may be surprised to find many of your products and services conform to the five innovation patterns of Systematic Inventive Thinking.  If so, it means your employees are predisposed to use innovation patterns when developing new  products.  Like many innovators, they are using patterns probably without realizing it. Given this predisposition to using innovation templates, a company can realize huge gains in innovation effectiveness by taking the next step.

Take the case of a large industrial company in the energy sector.  It leads the industry producing a product that is relatively simple in design but incredibly challenging to produce.  Despite its strong reputation and market success, the company worries it is not innovative.  Yet when I reviewed its project pipeline, I spotted concepts with each of the five patterns of S.I.T. (Subtraction, Task Unification, Multiplication, Attribute Dependency, and Division).  The teams did not use S.I.T. in the classic way (apply templates and work backwards using “Function Follows Form” to find a potential benefit).  Instead, they used trial and error, experimentation, and good old fashioned tinkering.  Their innovations embody the templates nevertheless.

These teams are more innovative than they think.  They are one short step away from applying S.I.T..  They already have these patterns inside them, so now it’s just a matter of extracting them and putting them to use in a more disciplined way.  Using S.I.T. on their products and processes will force new combinations and concepts that they would not have thought of otherwise.  The method will “bootstrap” their innovation performance to a new high level.

If your company is predisposed to innovation, take these steps to ramp up performance:

Innovation Follows Strategy

Published date: February 10, 2008 в 11:45 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,

Innovation that is done in the context of business strategy tends to be more focused, efficient, and business-model relevant.  Innovation should not be viewed as a way to take the organization off its strategic track and in new directions.  Rather, innovation should be applied in a way that makes the current strategic track more successful and profitable…true growth.
Yet the tendency is to view this approach as incrementalism and not disruptive enough in the Christensen sense.  Some would say that starting with your current situation is not bold and is risk adverse.  “We’re not thinking outside the box” is the usual incantation at this point.  Instead, there is a preference to chasing “white space” and “open source” innovation as a source of growth.  Some executives prefer the lure of white space and opportunity spotting, and they readily acknowledge that it is “low yield by design.”  The Scarcity Principle tends to make these opportunities seem more valuable than they really are.  White space chasers position themselves as fighting the heroic fight.  Resources come pouring in.
The best Fortune 100 companies pursue high yield, organic innovation efforts… not “low-yield-by-design” efforts.  High yield innovation comes from tying innovation directly to the strategic marketing context of the firm.  Ideas generated this way help the organization stretch its model in a way that is achievable and internally-sellable.
How do you tie innovation to strategy?  Professor Christie Nordhielm from the University of Michigan has developed what I consider the best single contribution to marketing thought since the 4P’s.  Her Big Picture framework of the marketing management process provides the context for innovating across the entire business model.  Applying systematic innovation tools to each aspect of her Big Picture model can yield amazing insights at both the strategic and tactical levels of the business.  It is the intersection of these two ideas…Big Picture Strategy and Systematic Inventive Thinking…that will yield consistent, profitable results.  Innovation follows strategy…not the other way around.

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

    No thanks, not now.