Posted: May 15th, 2009 in Innovation Training
K&A has been conducting innovation training for many years, and we think the lessons we’ve learned will help you make best use of any innovation training.
It’s certainly no secret given the news of the past 2 weeks that the American economy is in trouble. In times like this, companies often pull away from innovation as they try to shore up their base businesses by optimizing production, decreasing waste, and taking other measures to cut costs. However, top companies still have innovation at the top of their minds. One way these companies are continually investing in innovation is through innovation training. K&A provides a variety of targeted training offerings; as do many others. We want to take a moment to reflect on some of the factors that have been critical to the success of K&A training efforts in the past.
1. Upfront interviews
Any training effort needs to begin with an upfront assessment of your business. Too often training is not specific to your organization; the right approach is to begin by collecting data from 2-5 key decision-makers in the innovation process. Talk with managers who either drive innovation today or will be responsible for championing innovation in the next 3 years. When we conduct these interviews we look for:
- An understanding of where innovation fits in the culture: Important insights can be gained when a senior manager believes that innovation is “in the blood”; it’s just as important (if not more so) when senior managers indicate that the cultural focus is currently on cost optimization – not new products, services, internal processes or business model innovations.
- A guide to innovation processes currently in place (if any): Many companies look to upgrade their processes that have been successful so far at generating internal and closer-in innovations. Training modules need to be customized to supplement or modify current established processes, not to reinvent the wheel.
- Knowledge of the goals for innovation: Training efforts should focus on reaching whatever goals have been set for the business, whether it’s the development of breakthrough new products, entry into new markets, or successful application of a proprietary new technology.
The alternative to upfront preparation is that the training is delivered and a company then struggles to understand how to assimilate an alien process and culture.
2. Getting the right people
Training events should have the right group of people in the room. Obvious, right? It’s not always so. Innovation training should be directed at certain key groups in distinct sessions. This is because successful innovation training should be tightly tailored to a given level and function within your organization. Effective use of everyone’s time depends on taking account of the content necessary to impart to each audience, as well as the time available (especially when senior management is involved).
The goal is to get each audience exactly the information they need while minimizing time and expense. Senior management training should focus on strategy, integrating innovation into company culture, and leading innovation throughout the organization. On the other hand, innovation project teams which will be tasked with actualizing the new product/service development project need a much higher level of depth, including walking the team through the recommended process. (In the case of K&A training, this is the 7-Step Innovation Process.)
The key is not only to explain the process, but to provide hands-on experience with the process. For example, we often walk innovation teams through generation of problem and opportunity areas, solution generation, and the vetting of solutions against agreed-upon screens. While this experience is limited (compared with, for example, the 4-5 months hands-on joint innovation projects we execute with our clients), it gives project teams a flavor for the process they will be executing going forward.
3. Concrete plan for the future
Training engagements should end with a clearly defined and agreed-upon (to the extent possible) blueprint. Too often, we hear friends and colleagues tell us that training they received generated significant interest and enthusiasm but that when the training ended momentum was lost and, with it, excitement surrounding innovation. This not only dampens the benefits of training but often has a negative effect: when employees see management making a commitment to innovation and not really following through, they are less likely to devote serious energies to scaling up the next innovation effort. It’s better to have no training than innovation training that just leads to dashed spirits and disappointed expectations.
We end most of our training sessions by generating a 90 Day Innovation Blueprint, listing the concrete steps that need to be taken to achieve the goals of the organization, be it to agree on an innovation strategy and financial goals or to launch an initial innovation project. This way, training participants understand and have agreed on the next steps coming out of the session. Whatever your approach post-training, make sure to maintain momentum and build in a component of accountability and ownership to the process.
Training can be a valuable way of sparking innovation in your organization, a task that is especially important in light of the temptation to focus all available resources on cost-cutting. Successful training imparts a customized message, to the right people, and ends with concrete action steps.
Posted: April 28th, 2009 in Innovation
The New York Times reported last week that it lost nearly $75MM in the first quarter of 2009. Part of this was attributed to a decline in ad sales over the last year, due in part to the severely weakened economy. The other cause—unstated in the article, but discussed in detail by online publications—is the dramatically changing world of print media. The simple fact is this: fewer people are paying to read the New York Times, and most other printed publications. They are moving, instead, to online alternatives, which provide much of the same content for free.
This shift from paper to online readership shows no signs of letting up, which leads me to wonder: what, if anything, can save newspapers? Or, more specifically, can innovation save the New York Times?
What intrigues me most about the problem facing the Times and other papers is this: since it has moved its content online, I spend far more time reading it. The problem newspapers are facing is not lack of demand for their content. Where previously I would only purchase a copy of the Times a couple of times a week, I now have access to, and read, specific sections of the paper nearly every day. Though I’d prefer my bosses not know this, this extra reading happens at work where I can quickly and surreptitiously skim an article online while taking a break from whatever I am working on at the moment. I no longer have to deal with oversized printed newspapers, which, quite frankly, are rather difficult to read without anyone noticing.
The problem then, is figuring out a way to make this transition from print to web a profitable one for newspapers. This, I believe, is where innovation can play a role. In order to innovate and survive, newspapers must look at, and more deeply understand, three aspects of their business: their competition, their customers, and the way they offer their product
1. The Competition
The world of online publications is made up of small, dedicated websites that produce some of their own content, but more effectively aggregate relevant articles from larger, traditional outlets such as the Times or the AP. Most sites have a very specific focus, whether it is politics (Politico), finance (Bloomberg), music (Pitchfork), celebrity gossip (… I don’t visit those sites), or whatever other special interest a reader is looking for. Readers who know what they want can go to these sites directly and quickly find relevant content. Traditional newspapers, on the other hand offer their product as if it were a delivered to a doorstep. Online versions of newspapers include each article in every published section, and do not effectively help readers find what they are looking for beyond the front page headlines.
2. The Customer
If the Times were to agree that its competition has changed, the next question its publishers should ask is: who are our new customers? I actually don’t think the Times’ reader base has changed so dramatically. Instead, I believe that many of the Times’ former print readers are becoming, with the rest of the market, online readers. Because the marketplace has changed and new expectations have been set, the Times must understand its former customers’ new behaviors, perceptions, and needs. To fully understand this shift, research is needed.
The fundamental questions I would want to ask is this: how are readers behaving differently when they read content online instead of in print? Additionally, in this new world of online media, how is the Times and its product perceived? What unique value could it offer readers? And finally, what are readers not currently getting from online news sources? As is often the case, when a market changes so rapidly, a new set of customer problems and needs arise. Identifying these problems and needs (before the competition), and understanding new customer behaviors and perceptions, will allow the Times to develop valued online offerings that would set it apart from competition.
3. The Product
What might this new online offering look like? The first step is to move away from the way the Times “delivers” its online product. Market research would need to confirm this, but I suspect that a reader going to the New York Times site likely has a specific interest in mind—she isn’t looking to casually browse hundreds of articles over the course of an afternoon (remember, she is likely at work). Perhaps the Times site can convert itself into a portfolio of smaller, dedicated sites, with unique content and features that are distinct from what is currently published in print. It is already moving in this direction with blogs and videos that are now available in many of its sections. But, these special features are lost in the huge amount of content that is present on the Times homepage. Moving to a smaller, dedicated portfolio of sites would more closely match with changing consumer behaviors.
The other insight that should help drive development of an effective online product is an understanding of the Times’ unique point of difference. In a marketplace with many new and unknown publications, the Times would be recognized as delivering original, high-quality content that is, above all else, credible. These are timeless qualities that should give any online offering a considerable leg up on the competition.
A recent New Yorker article about a different shifting industry (automobiles) concluded with the following thought: “incumbents in mature industries facing transformations… usually don’t come out of it the winner.” So, can innovation save the New York Times? Despite what may seem like long odds, I believe it is the only thing that can.
Posted: April 22nd, 2009 in Addressing Consumer Needs
In a recent BusinessWeek article titled How to Think Outside the Box, Bill Buxton talks about going beyond the constraints of the current role and definition of technology, and instead focus on improving consumer experiences by paying more attention to “human” considerations, like how we live our everyday lives. While the article does a great job highlighting the need for technology to integrate better in our day-to-day lives , it made me go back to a fundamental mistake in many new technology-based products- lack of solving a true need.
Developers of new technology products often focus on “design” as a way to differentiate and get credit as being “innovative.” While design can be a very useful component in addressing the totality of consumer needs, many companies incorrectly assume that products based on unique and eye-catching design alone will rise to success. The recent focus on product design is often attributed to Apple and its legacy of successful new products over the last decade. Many argue that their products have been successful due to their sophisticated design – and therein is the underlying mistake.
Apple’s focus on design is twofold. The first and more obvious is to use design to make “friendlier” and more appealing products that enhance (often by simplifying) the user experience through hardware and software. But often overlooked is the other side – that Apple products actually address consumer needs. Their use of design is not simply for making good looking products, but actually helping users make the most of the underlying benefits of the technology. Combined with great business execution, Apple’s product lines have enjoyed growing success year after year visible from the company’s revenues that grew from almost $6 Billion in 1998 to over $32 Billion in 2008.
But successful new product development hinges on not just identifying the consumer need, but a much deeper understanding, including realization of the specific solution requirements consumers have. This is important, because a product that addresses the high level need, but fails to meet the specific solution requirements area will achieve only limited success. Innovators need to work on striking the right balance between meeting solution requirements and offering a good value proposition; failure to do so can severely limit market acceptance. Even Apple, recognized as the most innovative company in the world is not immune to this fundamental truth for new products, as it found with the initial release of the Apple TV set-top box that only achieved limited success (even CEO Steve Jobs admitted they missed the mark). While the product enabled consumers to access their downloaded media content (music, TV shows and movies) on their TV, it did not meet many of the specific solution requirements that consumers had (being able to download content directly, a good value proposition – consumers don’t want to feel like they bought another computer, etc). When Apple addressed some of these concerns in their second version of the product, sales triple over the previous year.
Companies need to focus on delivering relevant benefits to consumers, instead of simply offering new features in a pretty package. And the only way to really do that is focusing on solving the problem, and doing it right by meeting its requirements.
Posted: April 13th, 2009 in Innovation
“Innovation” and “design” are two ways of describing a complicated process leading to a single goal – developing winning new products and services that deliver market value. As the boundaries between the two continue to blur, the conversation should be moving away from creating strict divisions and focus on creating sustainable processes for creating new product and service value. However, there is a strain of thinking that seems to value design at the expense of innovation. Gadi Amit argues in the Fast Company blog that we should “Just say no” to innovation. Writing from an industrial design perspective, Amit’s bottom line is:
“The innovation crowd makes a fundamental mistake: that a complex market problem can be solved by a good analytical design. If you build the “process” right, and put the right “validation” and “methodology” in place, using more technology with more investment in the “process”, you’ll get a better product–wrong!”
While good industrial design certainly plays a key role in the ultimate development of new products, I want to make the case that Amit (while making a good-faith effort to move the discussion forward) pushes too far by tipping the balance further and further towards nebulous “intuitive look and feel” design and away from a repeatable process.
1. “Intuitive design” doesn’t scale. If companies must rely only on the intuition of world-class designers, only a few companies will be able to do so. A clear example of design success is the iPod, which introduced no new features or technology but, with a healthy dose of marketing, became a wild success. (The iTunes Store, which was indeed an innovative business model, came later.) However, not all companies will be able to rely on such design genius. Amit writes: “If the issue is the reliability of this method, the answer is the designer’s track record in resolving such challenges.” But of course this reveals the central danger in relying on “intuitive” design super-geniuses – they eventually leave or retire, leaving companies and the business press that covers them to wonder what they’ll do next. By claiming that “look and feel” of a product is “intuitive to the knowledgeable and obtuse to the novice” Amit seems to be saying that only a small cadre of elite designers can bring winning new products to the market. For companies looking to launch new products or services regularly, there must be a more robust and reliable way.
2. Winning product specifications begin with the consumer. One doesn’t have to look too far to find examples of products or even concepts that have failed to live up to consumer need despite excellent “look and feel,” as Amit puts it. Products succeed when they solve problems. New product design specifications should come out of detailed consumer research. Winning design certainly takes creative license in translating consumer need into tangible prototypes and products, but that design is successful in large part because innovation teams have been able to fully understand and communicate detailed needs of the consumer.
3. A focus on intuition over process creates a “non-disprovable proposition.” The benefit of a staged innovation process is that new product/service concepts move through rounds of concept and later prototype-shaping. The key question at each stage must be “does this product solve a consumer need?” Amit argues that “success can not be resolved by analytical methods.” However, relying on creativity and intuition simply moves the analytical methods later in the development timeline. As an example, if Project A follows a rigorous process, at each step in the concept shaping and product development the project is rated against its ability to meet consumer need, assuring that the final product reaches the market ready to perform. However, Project B focuses on design intuition. Since in this approach analytics and metrics only stifle creativity, and further since those not initiated into the cadre of elite designers wouldn’t know excellent design when they saw it, the product continues to move forward. Difficulties in the design will ultimately be found not during concept testing or prototype development but in the market, where the price of failure is maximized.
Ultimately, design does play a critical role in innovation and new product development, but the “special sauce” is brought to bear after consumer needs are well-known. It is those needs which must drive a repeatable new product development process.
Posted: April 6th, 2009 in Addressing Consumer Needs
We often find that one of the most commonly overlooked areas of innovation is the consumer/customer input. Many companies ideate behind closed doors without any understanding of what the consumer actually needs or wants. This is probably the worst possible way to go about creating the next new product or service that will perform well in the marketplace. The way to have a higher percentage of success is to make sure that the product/service being introduced is solving current problems and meeting unmet needs.
Although employees within any given company might think that they know their consumers, often they have grave misconceptions, especially senior management. That is why it is so important to talk to consumers during the innovation process. The only way to change that perception is to actually go out and talk to consumers and collect real world information.
Of course, companies are often reluctant to spend the time or money in conducting upfront consumer-centric research. But the important thing to take into consideration is that the money and time invested in upfront research is actually minimal compared to the time and money put into a new product launch, especially if that launch is going to fail. Another aspect of upfront research is that companies often do not see the long-term far reaching benefits. Research undertakings can continue to inform new product and service development for a number of years, since in many industries consumers change somewhat gradually and research findings are relevant for many years (outside of drastic world events, like say a global recession). Additionally, the research findings can immediately help inform base business decisions.
Upfront consumer research (and continued research all the way through development) helps companies go in the right direction with new products, and actually saves costs. Consumers help to outline what new products need to have, and what they are willing to pay for. This helps to cut down the costs (and hopefully increase margins) also eliminate unnecessary additions - for example a high cost packaging technology when consumers do not really value.
An example of a new product that was recently launched that seems to have not fully taken consumers input into account is the latest iPod Shuffle. The new Shuffle is slimmer than the previous generation with a more sleek and minimalist look. This change came with a movement of all the controls from the shuffle to the earphones. Granted, some consumers might be very happy about this change, but many have complained about the fact that this now means that they have to use Apple’s earbuds, or similarly licensed earphones. iPod Shuffles are often used for exercising, and many consumers like to customize the earphones they are using based on what works best for them. With the new iPod Shuffle, they can’t use their favorite earphones without some kind of a proprietary adapter. The technology might be breakthrough, but it also greatly impacts the way that consumers can use the product.
Consumer research is the only way to identify potential problems with new products and services both before extensive development and launch. The greater the understanding of the consumer, the greater the likelihood of success.