Innovation briefs....

The Guardian highlighted innovations in cement in "Revealed: The cement that eats carbon dioxide" but a closer look reveals that the UK cement industry is far from optimistic about its future....

I came across Afri Gadget somehow or other and was struck by how simple innovation can be. Sometimes it is too easy to assume innovation is about big bucks, IP and complexity but maybe it is wise to return to basics, at least now and again? In Africa there is often no alternative....

Innovation is also a strong theme at Timbukto Chronicles - "A view of Africa and Africans with a focus on entrepreneurship, innovation, technology, practical remedies and other self sustaining activities by Emeka Okafor" - take a look and leave a comment for Emeka, TED (You Tube for the brain...) Africa Director...

And finaly in this brief round-up of my innovation surfing, take a look at my post at the Science for Humanity forum on the value and challenges for cellular mobile in Africa - there is hope!

Government, bureaucracy and innovation failure...

The text below was taken from a recent WBCSD newsletter concerning a recent visit to one of the few UK biomass power generation plant’s; it nicely illustrates the bureaucratic challenges government presents to innovators :

“The plant also suffers from some policy decisions: The environment agency has stopped them from using a local source of oversize compost as a fuel as they define it as “WASTE”. Use of this locally sourced fuel was part of the operational budget for the plant. The response seemed to be that the problem was site-specific although there are still no clear guidelines as to what clean wood chip is defined as-a ‘fuel’ or ‘waste’. As the biomass sector develops this will become more of an issue.

The plant was partially funded by capital grants from Dti Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme and Advantage West Midlands. Unless these grants are repaid the plant is unable to benefit from ROC’s on the energy it delivers which again substantially upsets the operating budget.

These crazy decisions could only arise in the UK where we purport to support renewable energy initiatives but stick lots of red tape all over them. No wonder we lag well behind the rest of Europe!!”

So What?

What can we do to remove these barriers and create a more hospitable environment for much needed innovations such as these? Is ‘joined-up’ government still a vision rather than a reality? Government is keen to promote innovation but what part is it playing in innovation failure and what more should it do to remove barriers?

(The above comment first appeared at as a part of a NESTA discussion "Failing to Innovate" on innovation and failure.

Do Patent Pools restrict innovation?

This post on TechDirt by Mike Masnic agrees with recent research by Stanford academics Ryan Lampe and Petra Moser “Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation?
Evidence from the 19th-Century Sewing Machine Industry” that patent pools restrict innovation, essentially by "locking-in" innovation at a level beyond which there is no incentive to improve.

Patent pooling is increasingly common in high-tech where thousands of patents from multiple owners have to be licensed in a device such as a mobile phone. Patent pooling such as in this announcement "Patent Pooling Could Reduce LTE Competition" for LTE next generation mobile technology are meant to ease the traditional bilateral negotiations between patent owners - to agree fees, avoid litigation and reduce product release delays – all potentially expensive outcomes.

But are they good or bad for innovation? As Mike says,

“The core problem, once again, is confusing innovation (finding something that the market actually wants in a way that it wants it) with invention (coming up with something new). When you get a patent, or set up a patent pool, what you're effectively doing is declaring a stop on any incremental improvements above that. It ignores the fact that real innovation is an ongoing and never ending process of improvements and tweaks, often made by others. But, in blocking out the ability of others to make those improvements -- those real innovations -- you slow down, drastically, the pace of innovation. In the end, a patent pool is just like a bigger patent, and has the same negative impact on innovation, just on a larger scale.”

So What?

I don’t disagree with Mike that patent pools may restrict further innovation in their own domain but he seems to forget the fact that in at least some domains, like mobile, it is essential to have a stable and economic platform at a viable cost in the market and patent pooling exists to accelerate this process. Further activities in the mobile value chain depend on it, such as applications and content, and given the complexity and pace of change in products is there a viable altenaive?

For example, without an economically viable standard for LTE (for which the patent pooling announcement above is intended to help deliver) ‘dependent’ innovation in operating systems, applications and content technologies will be delayed, more expensive or less universal as a result and thus delaying uptake, usage and value to the consumer – the ultimate purpose of innovating in the first place.

Maybe patent pools are a constraint on innovation but maybe they are necessary if we are to generate innovation in other domains further up the value chain? Their use may help to release this innovation more quickly, cheaply or widely and as a result an inferior innovation (or standard that results) is a price worth paying?

Greenpeace Sarkobama viral campaign poster in Paris.....courtesy of Cedric at http://cedric-paris2e.blogspot.com/2008/12/sarkobama-revealed.html

Siemens ‘Inventors of the Year’ solve real world problems

“Our success is based on efficient innovation management. This can only be achieved when our innovation strategy is part of our business strategy and is geared toward attractive markets with long-term growth prospects.”

Professor Hermann Requardt, CTO and CEO of Siemens’s Healthcare Sector at the last Siemens annual ‘Inventors of the Year’ awards in Munich back in October.

So What?

I though this was an interesting quote as many firms appear to think innovation exists separately from business strategy and markets, that it exists in a disconnected and parallel world to thir present reality. Because of this they struggle to see and access it; innovation always remains an idyllic destination (the sandy beached pacific island?) that is beyond their reach or means.

Too many innovation processes (where they exist at all) do not start with a grounding in business and market strategy but with a vague hope that innovation can re-invent the business based solely on the inspiration and knowledge of individuals. Strategy, research, data and customers are often viewed as an encumbrance that can only limit and reduce the potential and scope for innovation rather than help to focus and stimulate it.

This failure to anchor an innovation process to the problems and opportunities of the marketplace and the strengths and assets of the business can lead to ill-conceived innovation initiatives that will not achieve their stated goals but contribute to a sense of failure, stasis or under-achievement.

In these uncertain economic times it is more important than ever to ensure we focus our innovation investments and the best place to start is to ensure they are firmy anchored in satisfying the needs of the business, customers and markets.

More on the Siemens awards at "Siemens increases number of patents by 10% to 55,000" at finchannel.com.

McKinsey's Assessing Innovation Metrics Global Survey Results

Some interesting stats from this McKinsey survey (Assessing innovation metrics: McKinsey Global Survey Results) that deserve to be highlighted:

1. 65 percent rank innovation in their top 3 strategic initiatives in 2008 compared to 70 percent in 2007.
2. 16% of the respondents say that their companies don’t use any metrics to assess innovations.
3. Companies are much likelier to rely on metrics for outputs than for inputs.
4. Respondents say that their companies use about eight metrics, on average, to assess innovations.

Successful innovators take more of a portfolio approach and use metrics to help create a balanced portfolio.

So What?

From the H2FL perspective the relatively sparse use of metrics is interesting as it suggests a palette of 8 metrics can be sufficient to gain the necessary feedback and control across a portfolio of projects.

In my experience the portfolio concept much loved of VC’s is still not appreciated outside of some large corporates. I think there is more work we need to do to sell the idea of a balanced portfolio aligned with an innovation strategy and the metrics necessary to shape and monitor it. I’ll add that to the list for How To Farm Lightning: sustainable innovation 2009!

Announcing British Design Innovation's Innovation Filter

This is an interesting initiative from the British Design Innovation in the UK - “30 leading design and innovation professionals team up to provide Innovation Filter for entrepreneurs & originators”.

Assessing the viability of ideas is never easy requiring a mix of knowledge and skills that is hard to found in one place, let alone one person. By pulling together a panel of this size of industry experts the BDI should be able to add real value to the filtering process to the benefit of innovative individuals and smaller firms without the financial or other resources to do it alone.

Says, Maxine Horn, CEO, British Design Innovation, “Whilst we are in a culture of Open Innovation, the majority of Corporates cannot view a proposition that is not patent protected due to the threat that doing so might cause to their own IP position. Thereby Originators commit to the cost of patent applications with little knowledge of whether their proposition is viable, and thereby their Patent valuable”.

Observes, Joss Newberry, Innovation Director, Opius “there is a significant drop-out rate of patent applications prior to the granting of a full patent, whether UK, European or global. Financial issues may cause some applicants to drop out but the fundamental issue for patent applicants is translating the idea into a commercially interesting proposition in an often time sensitive environment. The challenges facing patent applicants could be risk reduced with the existence of an organization that can join the dots –BDI is unique in its capability to do this with the support of the UK’s leading product and service design development Directors”.

F1 & Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital collaboration re-visited...

Back in April I mentioned (courtesy of Nesta) in “Extreme collaboration: The Formula 1 Intensive Care Unit” how Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in London had worked with Formula 1 teams “to halve the number of mistakes in the surgical and intensive care units through a collaborative project.”

So What?

With the withdrawal of Honda from F1 and predictions of the demise of F1 as we know it (90% salary cuts anyone?) then maybe it’s the time for the collaboration to be re-visited but with the roles reversed? What could Max Mosley of FIA and Bernie Ecclestone of F1 learn from Great Ormond Street to save their pampered baby? We all know collaboration is a two-way street so now the chips are down maybe its time for the favour to be repaid by the men in white coats?

McKinsey's Innovation Matters - show us where you see innovation

McKinsey is looking for your photos of local innovations to seed its innovation debate…...feel free to add a copy of anything you submit as a comment to this post.

"Our forthcoming publication What Matters is a collection of short essays by leading thinkers, scholars, and CEOs on big topics: climate change, globalization, health care, sustainability, the credit crisis, innovation, and more. In one of these, author and designer John Thackara writes, "If you want to find solutions that make a difference, the best place to look may be the community center down the street."

We agree that innovation is often best when it comes from small, widely distributed experiments. So we're inviting you to send us digital images of things that represent innovation in your part of the world. We will reproduce a broad sampling of these images in What Matters, as a photo-essay, and make them available online.

Please send your images to us at innovation_matters@mckinsey.com. Tell us what the innovation is in your photograph, and please limit the size of the image to 5 megabytes."

So what?

Its good to see McKinsey attempting to leverage the power of ‘the crowd’ and recognising that a picture is a great way to capture at least some types of innovation. One of the first challenges I often face in a company is to establish what innovation is actually going-on and this is not as straightforward asit may sound.

One techniqiue I have recently tried with success is to get employees across the orgnisation to submit photos and short (2 min) videos of product, service and especially process innovation (most have picture phones so this is not the challenge it used to be). This has proven a great way to get this process started and can reveal a lot of hidden innovation and a more innovative culture than leadership previously imagined.

Front End of Innovation Europe, Monaco 26-28 January 2009.

View the complete "Front End of Innovation Europe 2009" programme pdf. Quote VIP Priority Code: TT25DISC15 for a 15% discount.

To Register, Call Terrence Johnson at +1 646.895.7425, Email: tjohnson@iirusa.com.

I hope to see you there!

Last fart of the ferret

I rather identify with this excerpt from The Economist’s skunk works Inside Project Red Stripe back in 2006, the story of which is now available online and as a book.

“Taiichi Ohno, father of the Toyota Production System and an inspiration to many Systems Thinkers. In an interview with an Economist journalist (and which I have never been able to trace), he reportedly likened creativity in a survival culture to the last fart of the ferret. When a ferret is cornered it emits a powerful stench like a skunk, and employees, he said, when facing closure of the company, would come up with some of their most creative ideas. [Incidentally, if you search for 'last fart of the ferret', Google will rather coyly ask you if you meant 'last fruit of the ferret' - a delightful possibility which, sadly, produces no results if you accept the suggestion.]”

I knew necessity was the mother of invention but not that a ferret's fart could save so many company's from closure, surely worth knowing in these stressed times?

The blog is well worth a read for the multitude of questions it poses and if anyone out there thinks corporate innovation does not need deep thought, careful attention and active management to make it happen then think again.

Can China innovate – you bet it can!

This article from Strategy & Business of Booz & Co. (“China’s Long Road to Innovation”) suggests that China will find it very hard to evolve from a global manufacturer to a global innovator.

“Ultimately, Du and other Chinese experts question whether Chinese enterprises and companies can ever innovate technologically. One issue is culture. In Western and Japanese companies, researchers are allowed to develop ideas rather than being told which ideas to pick, and they are allowed to fail. These conditions require a delicate balance between a company’s top management and its technical talent. But in Chinese companies, which tend to be very centralized, individual initiative and risk-taking are rarely rewarded. Chen also argues that Communist Party control of the economy is a disincentive for innovation. “The party wants all the good ideas to be its ideas,” he says.”

So What?

Is the Chinese problem deeply rooted or can at least private firms create the necessary space and culture to innovate as we do in the West? Or will Chinese firms find an alternative way to innovate that leverages their strengths and minimises their weaknesses, just as their Japanese and Korean neighbours appear to have done? Who says the Western approach to innovation is THE way rather than one of many, an approach adapted to the ego-centric culture of the West?

It is so easy to forget that many innovations we now take for granted originated from huge government initiated and funded post-war programs, from NASA moon landing and nuclear power to jet aircraft and telecoms. I for one will not dismiss the Chinese as destined to fail at innovation, especially in a world where original research is ever more scare and under-funded, no more so than in the USA.

China has formidable potential to innovate whole new industries just as the US has done before it. The problems stated in the article are only tactical and just as Chinese entrepreneurs now have the space to make money (unimagined 20 years ago) so Chinese researchers can have the envronment and motivation to innovate – and probably very quickly once the problem is fully recognised.

I would suggest the US and Europe should be seeking to re-invent themselves to compete rather than continuing to look at China through a lens that only distorts rather than reveals and assumes THEIR way is THE way.

Thames Valley Innovation Conference 2008, Reading, UK.

The third annual conference on innovation hosted by TVEP but the first for me. This one-day event (a part of the Thames Valley iFestival running until the end of November) had a distinctly technology-focused agenda, as is to be expected given the high-tech corporate inhabitants of the Thames Valley.

Unfortunately I missed the Keynote session but I learnt something from most of the sessions and stayed until the end, unlike most delegates. The exhibition was not great though Bemoko are worth a call if you want simple business apps delivered via mobiles. Apparently they had built a conference site for the hosts but it had not been promoted so a lost opportunity to demonstrate innovation there!

There was not a great deal of networking opportunities given the format of the event but it was good to chat with guest speakers from O2, (Dr Mike Short, VP of R&D), Microsoft (Andrew Watson, Senior Director) and Syngenta (DR Mike Bushell, Head of Site) about the challenges of global R&D, the mobile industry and open innovation.

Andrew Watson of Microsoft provided some insights as to how they encourage and channel innovation and besides an ideas exchange I was intrigued to hear of their “Think Week”. Once a year Bill Gates (I ugess not any more) and Steve Balmer dedicate a week to sifting through formal written submissions from any staff member with ideas they want to suggest. I guess the main aim is to by-pass potentially obstructive management whilst providing access to the leadership. Knowing a submission is going straight to the top apparently ensures there are few time-wasters and submissions are generally well conceived.

My attempts to unearth some best practice secrets as to how to manage a large distributed global R&D organisation drew a blank with wide scale agreement that it was indeed a challenge! Syngenta kept the model as simple as possible with only a handful of sites with each specialising in a research focus thus minimising required interaction between sites. Key start-up, knowledge transfer or other major activities were achieved via a dedicated expat, usually someone wishing to return home to the new site and therefore having a strong interest to make the project a success.

?WhatIF! were the star turn and Harry Hobson and Andy Reid did a great job in enlightening the crowd as to the value and need for creativity in the innovation process - and a few ways to help it along. ?WhatIf! work with Samsung, Nokia, Vodafone and other technology firms so I will be exploring via Harry how best to partner on farming innovation lightning.

The SME presentations were as enlightening as the corporates and especially Malcolm Duckett of Speed Trap (web site monitoring) and Alex Pratt of Serious Readers (specialist reading lights), both of which in their different ways demonstrated the need for tenacity and flexibility when pursuing ideas and overcoming inevitable setbacks.

If you are in the area I would recommend attending this event if it runs next year as planned but the organisers need to find better ways to network participants and develop a clearer focus for the programme presentations.

Conference site at http://www.theinnovationconference.net/.

Internet of Things, Internet of the Future- Nice 2008

A little late I know but the Autumn conference season really does stretch my capacity. I could only attend the first day of this two day event in Nice in October but most of the presentations are available from the above title link.

So What?

I am not deep into RFID or related technologies but I guess I was a little surprised as to how slowly things are developing in the area given the bout of promise a few years ago. Not only are technologies fragmented but are a lot of legal and regulatory issues regarding confidentiality and privacy in a world rendered transparent by emerging tracking and identification technologies. This conference was as much about those as it was about technology in general or the future of the Internet in particular.

The usual challenges of developing accepted standards raises its head and its clear self-interest groups are still battling to get their way given the enormity of the opportunity in the long term. But will the vision of a truly connected world with more devices and objects than people connected to the internet come about? IPv6 may enable this but there a lot more issues to be addressed and from this conference it is clear that most have nothing to do with technology.

How long should tags on goods be active and how do we know they have been de-activated? Should the consumer have access to the data stored? Who does the data belong to and how is the data shared? The list is a long one so don’t expect to see the Internet being taken over by ‘things’ for a while yet and it may be that there will be many alternative networks vying for the right to host the connectivity of things.

An example of Living labs at Workspring by Steelcase

Springwise brought this Workspring Living Lab to my attention earlier this week. Based in Chicago, this commercially available meeting space will double as a lab to test new products from office furniture manufacturer Steelcase.

As Herman Miller made apparent with their ground-breaking Aeron ergonomic chair back in the early 90’s, there is much more to an office chair than keeping your bum off of the floor, as my bum will gladly testify.

So What?

Wikipedia defines a Living Lab as a “….new research paradigm integrating both a user centred multidisciplinary research approach and a user community driven innovation based on real life experiments.”

Living Labs first arose in the Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) space and are particularly strong in Europe where the EU is promoting via several initiatives and a map of them is avalable at OpenLivingLabs.

In essence they are a half-way house for innovations that are ready to escape the laboratory but are not yet sufficiently developed to survive in the real world. A Living Lab is a place where innovations can be monitored and evaluated in a realistic but controilled environment whilst being used by end users. The observaions and feedback generated can then be used to adpat and further develop the innovaion as well as maybe better positioning the innovaion in the marketplace.

Living Labs are another step in the evolution of innovation as it migrates from a closed and R&D dominated focus to a more open and connected paradigm more closely focused on satisfying real needs and attuned to real users from day one. They are another way to engage users and customers earlier in the innovation process and this is very important for the increasingly complex products and services that require a high level of user acceptance in order to succeed, such as mobile data services.

Maybe office furniture does not immediately fall into this category and this Steelcase initiative is more about marketing than innovation (or innovation in marketing?) but either way we are going to see more of these "middle-space" or "bridging" initiatives both within and outside of ICT.

Nokia and Open Innovation

Open innovation and Nokia Philosophy, Dr. Bob Iannucci, CTO of Nokia and Head of Nokia Research Center. from DevilsRejection on Vimeo.

This is a great introduction to Open Innovation. Though presented from the context of Nokia it is very relevant to a much wider audience and especially the ICT universe.

FYI, Bob is no longer CTO at Nokia though still works in an advisory role.

42 minutes, recorded in Espoo, Finland earlier this year.

Innova Lyon 2008

Unfortunately I could not accept the kind invitation of the French EU Presidency to attend Innova in Lyon last month.

The Innova conference website now contains most of the presentations and a quick scan does not reveal much new, as is mostly the case at these “acado-governmental” gigs; the innovation is elsewhere and closer to the edge.

Eric Von Hippel was there and his presentation is worth a scan if you are not familiar with the work or want an update from of the father of ‘user-led’ innovation theory.

So What?

One buried gem I did enjoy is Gary Waterworth Owen’s of the Centre for Sustainable Design in the UK and his presentation on Lifecycle thinking. This is something close to my heart and the sustainable innovation focus on which How To Farm Lightning is trying to build.

In his presentation Gary notes that there are 4400 US patents for mousetraps, less than 20 have made money but there are still 400 new patent applications per year. This is in stark contrast to the untapped opportunities the world presents for innovation given our preoccupation with the front-end of the product life-cycle and almost total neglect of the back-end. This results in huge waste, inefficiency and pollution and also raises deeper questions as to our values and the way we choose to live.

Innovating in a recession....

I posted a comment on this NESTA post on innovating in a recession. Here is the concluding advice and the full comment can be seen at http://blogs.nesta.org.uk/connect/2008/10/is-a-recession.html?cid=136170255#comment-136170255

"So, my advice is:

1.Spend more time with your existing customer’s and get to know how they are impacted by the downturn and current plans to deal with it - look for new insights.

2.Use these insights to identify new ways to help them beyond current offerings and lower prices and explore areas that they may have previously rejected but may now be open to.

3. Re-visit your strategy and re-orient it towards the new market conditions – success will go to the agile and the courageous and this may be a better time to change direction than you think."

Brendan at www.HowToFarmLightning.com

Posted by: Brendan 24 Oct 2008 11:24:28

Free H2FL Workshop - November 18th, London....

I and colleague Paul May will be hosting a free and informal H2FL workshop at NESTA in London on Tuesday November 18th.

We will use the ocassion to test a few ideas and components for the 2009 programme with a small group of associates and hopefully a few new faces as well. If you would like to be one of the lucky 'new faces' then drop me an email with your profile and why you would like to attend to info@HowToFarmLightning.com.

The workshop will run from 10.00 to around mid-afternoon and is kindly hosted by NESTA at their facility in central London.

I and H2FL co-host Paul May hope to see some of you there!

Tesco profits from the banking crises?

'Every cloud has a silver lining' is a popular expression in my family and it looks like Tesco here in the UK knows an opportunity when it sees it.

According to The Guardian, Tesco CEO Tom Leahy "Consumers change faster than companies. It is not that there is not a market, it is that you are not set up for the market that is out there."

Not only was he taking a swipe at his more upmarket competitors such as Marks & Spencer being slow to react to the tighter spending constraints of customers' but also his plans to create a retail bank and provide mortgages.

According to the article, Tesco managed to create and launch a new low-cost product range in less than 12 weeks (an industry record?) to slow the move of ‘value buyers’ to the discounters Lidl and Aldi.

But Leahy sees an even bigger opportunity to leverage the Tesco trusted brand into the retail banking space. Though this plan has been on the cards for some time, the move looks extremely positive given our loss of confidence with the banking sector in general and the demise of so many of its previously solid brands, both in the UK and on Wall Street.

Retailers in general, and Tesco in particular in the UK, are much more open, accessible and ‘understandable’ than any bank and are huge cash generating machines. They traditionally benefit in a downturn as spending on entertainment, restaurants and holidays is curtailed in favour of staying-in with increased spending on the food basket as a result.

So What?

Are we about to see the birth of a new generation of retail bankers or is Tesco (once again) an exception?

Can we see the same trend elsewhere, particularly in the US with Wal-Mart and Target?

Is this a sign that retails finance is now truly a commodity and success will go to the lowest cost provider, something retailers know all about?

Is this a classic case of disruptive innovation?

And what does this say about innovation and change capabilities, knowing your Customer, agility and and leadership? Let me know your thoughts.

2009 named European Year of Creativity and Innovation

This item from China View reports that the EU today designated 2009 as "European Year of Creativity & Innovation".

So What?

I am not a great fan of government agencies designating day's or year's so have low expectation's of this initiative to nudge us Europeans in the 'right' direction compared with our more innovative American & Asian brothers.

But why 'Creativity & Innovation' and not just 'Innovation', or indeed just 'Creativity'?

Surely they cannot believe that we Europeans are less creative than our peers elsewhere? Creativity oozes from our European pores and Europe ranks highly in the creative industries, design, art, music, film etc etc.

What we lack is the ability to create value via innovation (not creativity) and this is largely due to systemic market constraints and linguistic diversity in our highly fragmented European marketplace.

But I guess dealing with these problems is way too hard (especially in a deteriorating economic climate) and they have to do something to justify thier existence and satisfy the Treaty of Lisbon, whether creative, innovative or not.

If all it results in is another round of poorly organised, uncompelling and self-referencing conferences as I am currently witnessing here in France under the French EU presidency then I know my vote.

What do you think? Waste of time and money or a chance to move the debate on?

Update: See http://www.naider.com/noticias/detalle.asp?id=6278 - looks like it will pass (like most these 'events' without us noticing, not sure why I bothered....

Machiavelli on innovation ....

I just love this quote on innovation I recently discovered via Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas: the fate of the connected commons in a connceted world"

“Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is indifferent partly from fear and partly because they are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experince.” Machiavelli, The Prince.

So What?

Human nature appears not to have changed since Nicollo Machiavelli's treatise on power written in 1513. Will it ever?

H2FL Webinar archive...

View and listen to the latest H2FL webinar hosted by Frost & Sullivan Ltd.

Click here to enter the Genisys meeting centre, enter 02030480911 as the meeting number and click View Archive. Enter your name & email address on the following registration screen-no password required- and select view 'Innovation 2'.

Depending on your browser configuration a small codec may need to be downloaded, accept the option if provided.

Massively Muliplayer Games take-over where Gaming leaves off...

World Without Oil (WWO) is a great example of a new generation of ‘massively multiplayer’ collaborative games that utilise several communication tools in the pursuit of entertainment and learning.

It demonstrates the possibilities to use existing technologies in more creative ways, to leverage dispersed knowledge and collaborate to understand complex problems whilst having fun at the same time.

World without Oil sits at the convergence of gaming, social networking, communities and scenarios. It moves gaming on from its traditional dependence on a single proprietary platform, whether Sony’s, Microsoft’s or Nintendo’s by leveraging many communication options and scaling beyond the sofa.

WWO enables player’s to explore, learn and deal with a fictitious but plausible scenario – in this case a world without oil. Its genetics are more those of mass-collaboration, mobs and the open culture of the internet than gaming. It deviates from the gaming roadmap and evolutionary innnovation curve, eschewing improving graphics, machine-human interaction and entertainment, which together both define and limit gaming’s marketplace and audience today.

WWO did not emerge from a gaming studio. It is not an evolution of gaming but rather an attempt to apply social media to create new games, games that free player’s from the sofa and appeal to a new audience with a new agenda.

WWO heads in another direction, focusing on the ability to connect large numbers of individuals interested in better understanding a real-world issue and moving out from behind the 3rd screen and console in order to play it.

So What

As posted here, web 2.0 technologies and social networking seems to be lacking compelling applications beyond the core of ‘my network’, picture and video sharing and personal profiling and dating.

WWO provides something that many social networking and gaming platforms seem to lack, a reason to connect beyond entertainment and the trivia that dominates web 2.0 a turn-off for many.

WWO has led the way and others are imminent with the Institute For The Future’s SUPERSTRUCT due in late September. Every school, university and engaged citizen and campaign can benefit from these Massively Multiplayer Games that are set to engage and entertain in equal measure and in ways that will change both the scope and focus of gaming forever.

Sustainability & Sustainablity - a love hate relationship?

I made the comment below in response to a post on Innovation by SIT, "Sustainability & Sustainablity - a love hate relationship?", original post can be viwed here.

"Whilst accepting that “innovation” & “sustainability” are overly-used and misunderstood buzzwords I have to admit not to seeing them in any way in conflict or pulling a business in opposite directions as you seem to imply. For me, the sustainability agenda is another ‘driver’ for innovation and joins the classics already established - Social, Technology and Economic. It is simply another factor in the innovation equation and yes, it may thus further complicate innovation decisions and priorities but it does not fundamentally change anything about the innovation process.

I think your assumption that innovation always requires ‘more’ and is therefore in conflict with sustainability a false one; the conflict is more between sustainability and traditional patterns of ‘consumption’ (consumerism and related business model where more and bigger is better) rather than innovation, which is only a means to an end, whatever end we desire and define.

If we add ‘Re-think’ to the beginning of the 3 R’s sustainability mantra (Reduce, Reuse & Recycle) then maybe we have a more positive context within which to innovate sustainably? Give that many costs for existing product’s are “external” to the price paid i.e. not factored into the cost of production and sale price, then going even further and starting with ‘Re-costing’ existing product’s may help to create the oft missing burning platform necessary to spur sustainable innovation.

Both innovation and sustainability suffer from relative ‘newness’ compared to other disciplines and activities and therefore lack clarity and I think this is the key challenge for many individuals and firm’s. I have always believed that “less is more” applies to innovation so I guess sustainability just confirms me in that belief!"

Do schools today kill creativity? (Ken Robinson, TEDTalks)

I came across this inspiring and humourous talk via a post on the UltraFuture blog. It is a condemnation of current public education systems and a rallying call for radical change in the way we value and educate our children. Without this change they will be poorly equipped to deal with the uncertainty and challenges their generation will face. With a son in the French education system (where there is little space for creativity in any guise) I certainly share Sir Ken's concern.

"Jobs-to-be-done" in practice....

Here is an example of the “Jobs-to-be-done” (J2BD) tool used to ‘reverse engineer’ an existing product, in this case Ultra Motor’s A2B Light Electric Vehicle (LEV) as profiled by Innosight in this blog post. We use “Jobs-to-be-done” (J2BD) in H2FL workshops and demonstrate its power to ‘reverse engineer’ Starbuck’s current product offering. One highlight here enhancement here is that Innosight identify Social, Emotional and Functional jobs to create a more rounded and complete picture of the customer needs they believe are satisfied by the product.

So What?

firstly, Innosight makes a common mistake of comparing this product with traditional gas-powered scooters when in fact its competition is much more likely to be a growing list of alternative electric scooters, the Segway, a bicycle, public transport etc.

What is important when applying the J2BD tool is to drive-out what hidden needs are uniquely being addressed by the product or service, especially if in a competitive and crowded market such as LEV’s. It takes creativity and a 360° perspective to do this and any simplistic analysis is likely to be less than useful.

The only sign of uniqueness in this anlaysis of the product is the innovative business model being applied in Stuttgart, Germany. Maybe this is the only unique feature but if it is, it addresses a more specific need not highlighted here – access to suitable transportation without capital investment and puts the product into a different competing category.

Like all tools J2BD needs careful application and any superficial rendering of it will likely lead to the wrong analysis and conclusions’, whether ‘reverse engineering ’ an existing product or trying to identify the needs for a new one.

The Process - a light-hearted look at innovation ...and marketing....

This video appeared on the Communication Nation blog last week - well worth a view for all of those involved in innovation and marketing - enjoy!

A step towards Open Innovation in the auto industry?

I was interested to see these comments by Bob Carter of Toyota reported in the Detroit Free Press last week,

“As an industry, we cannot let automotive suppliers, the very backbone of this business, collapse at a time when the industry needs us most," Carter told the Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City on Thursday. "The only way we can survive and thrive is to collaborate and share our best ideas and build alliances between OEMs and suppliers that will blossom and endure," said Carter, Toyota's vice president and general manager of Toyota Motor Sales USA. After his speech, when asked what kind of a cooperative structure he would like the industry to adopt, Carter said automakers need to be more open to listening to the innovative ideas that suppliers have. He also said Toyota tries to be more open than other automakers but plans to be even more open in the future.”

So What?

The tag line of “How 2 Farm Lightning: sustainable innovation” is that we need to Stop hunting and Start farming innovation. One of the shifts in behaviour firm's need to make to achieve this is to move from 'competing suppliers to competing eco-systems' i.e. raise the game and and innovate across a supply chain to quickly and effectively meet innovation challenges, spreading risk, leveraging knowledge and engaging commitment in so doing.

Today an auto OEM innovates a new product within its walls and then engages with suppliers to source components at a cost, volume and quality level it defines. Some, like the Japanese led by Toyota, are more open than others but in general this is the base model with few significant variants. This can often be a very adversarial relationship and result in the suppliers bearing the brunt of cost cutting and efficiency campaigns, with the results we see now and Bob alludes to in his quote.

This is the way it has always been and has worked reasonably well in a world of stable steady growth, evolutionary technology and few shocks. But it is no longer working in a more competitive, volatile and open marketplace as the US auto industry struggles with the impact of high oil prices, increased material costs, pending recession and better positioned foreign competition.

More importantly, this model will not scale to meet the next wave of radical innovation in power-trains and systems required to take the industry into the 21 century of clean, efficient vehicles and universal transportation systems and an industry that needs to more closely resembles the open IT industry rather than the closed auto industry of today.

If, as Bob Carter indicates, he wants to engage more deeply with suppliers and raise the value of the relationship then he will have to find a new business model to support it and overcome a lot of engrained mistrust. This will be very, very tough but maybe the deep-seated problems faced by the auto industry in America today will provide the ‘burning platform’ required to make such a fundamental change.

He will certainly find it a lot easier with the new external technology providers entering the auto supply chain than those steeped in the rust belt culture but as the locus of the industry continues to move West at least he and fellow execs will have a model to 'stop hunting and start farming' innovation.

For more on this topic download the recent H2FL article published in ‘The Partner 2008’ (produced by Partnering Sourcing Ltd) here.

Disrupting Mobile innovation?

As this article in Spiegel Online International states, the mobile industry is about to be disrupted again; Swedish-Indian private start-up VNL intends to launch its low-cost and energy efficient base station for the “next billion mobile users”.

Whilst consumers in the West salivate at the latest Apple iPhone the less glamorous network equipment sector that powers the networks is focused elsewhere. Growth in emerging and developing markets drives the majority of new sales today, but at prices that leave little margin for the struggling vendors or truly satisfy the needs of local operators.

VNL sees opportunity to address the next billion mobile users and in so doing “disrupt” the leading mobile telco vendors of Ericsson, Nokia Siemens and Alcatel Lucent and their more price competitive Chinese competitors Huwai and ZTE.

They aim to do this via their solar-powered network base station specifically designed to meet emerging market needs. More energy-efficient, simpler to install and easier to maintain than today's offering, they hope to open-up the market to more low-end growth so network operators can be profitable with revenues of a few dollars per subscriber rather than $5-$10 today.

If delivered as conceived, VNL will under-cut current offerings by a least a third and maybe much more. They will enable networks to be installed and operated at lower costs and in places with no grid electricity or need for increasingly expensive diesel for generators. They aim to drive demand in rural and impoverished areas across India and elsewhere. Not only will this improve the quality of life for millions but it will drive GDP growth and encourage enterprise and development, as mobile penetration has already demonstrated in many emerging markets (see the GSM Association for further details).

So What?

For students of innovation, VNL's solution could be a classic example of 'disruptive innovation'. On the one hand such disruptive innovation can expand a market by lowering the cost for Customers for whom the current solution is too expensive. At the same time it can more cost-efficiently (and environmentally in this case) meet the basic needs of existing Customers for whom current solutions are both too sophisticated and too expensive, discouraging usage and adoption.

The potential for such “two-sided" disruptive innovation in emerging markets is significant. We will surely see examples in other industry’s as the limitations of products adapted from Western designs and dependent on Western infrastructure, support and resources reach their natural limits but fail to address the real needs of billions.

Can Western firms react quickly enough to address this market themselves, and should they? Are they willing to disrupt and cannibalise their own existing businesses and product lines in order to do this? And are they willing to concede direction and control to emerging market subsidiaries and local R&D or will it be left to company’s such as VNL to disrupt in the future?

No financial, commercial or client interest to declare.

'>Step change in auto innovation?

This report on the work of "The Intelligent Logistics for Innovative Product Technologies" project suggests it should now possible to produce cars to order in 5 days using the latest in information and production technologies.

Such advanced and integrated "end-to-end" processes are well established in the IT industry led by Dell. Scaling to auto is a logical progression if the constraints imposed by traditional manufaturing techniques and materials such as steel can be overcome, as the report suggests they now can.

So What?

The biggest problem in the business model of the auto indistry is matching supply and demand. Predicting demand for a new model that will not reach the market for several years is hard and in times of volatility and uncertiantly (such as we are experiencing in most markets now) even the best forecasts go astray. The gap between optimal production capacity and demand is filled by very expensive advertising, marketing and discounting. Only producing to demand will free billions for struggling manufacturers tied up in unslod stock and components, sorely needed by most in today's harsh sales environment.

But maybe the challenge goes even deeper and requires the auto industry to question the fundamentals of what it does and the business model it has to do it. New power trains When will we see Auto 2.0

The role of Trust in Collaboration & Open innovation

This research from Cisco & the EIU highlighted a significant challenge we face in moving from ‘closed’ to ‘open’ innovation models i.e. linear, proprietary and internally-driven (typically by our own R&D) to collaborative (with suppliers, partners and increasingly customers). As the research suggests, although we talk about collaborating today in fact most collaboration is no more than communicating to coordinate activities or cooperating across departmental boundaries to solve problems, creating no new significant insights or value.

If encouraged, collaboration can be a significant multiplier with each player bringing the sum of their knowledge and the value of this generating new insights impossible to gain via classic problem-solution behaviour; the challenge is to move the operator from addition to multiplication where 3+3 = 6 becomes 3x3 = 9, a 50% improvement.

A good example from my experience is NPD (New Product Development), a process designed to create new value, but often lacking the depth of collaboration necessary to achieve it. Too often each party is ensconced in its organisational, linguistic an cultural corner defending its position and without any real intention to step into the new space necessary to generate something new, compelling, different or with a clear customer value proposition.

This Industry Week article suggests that we are going to see a step increase in collaborative activities, including SME's, right across the value chain creating even more pressure to address the trust deficiency.

So What?

If collaboration is a struggle today, then how much more of an issue is going to be in an open innovation culture? Maybe we need to focus on and solve the internal trust issue that sits behind ineffective internal collaboration before we can progress to more demanding external ones? How many organisations have even considered this as an issue, especially in the context of innovation, or make a serious attempt to build the internal cultural, linguistic and organisational bridges necessary? Few that I know.

The way we manage a business, the metrics and rewards we use to influence behaviour sit at the heart of this and without a better understanding of their role in encouraging or limiting meaningful collaboration and the achievement of our innovation goals our innovation gap is going to grow. Yet another sign that it is time to “stop hunting and start farming lightning!”

Trust equation image courtesy of http://www.designinglife.com/.

A regulatory constraint on UK innovation?

This post from Springwise on UK start-up http://www.cmypitch.com/ (an online marketplace to match investors and business opportunities) highlighted a regulatory constraint to innovation in the UK:

"Due to UK financial regulations, viewers need to register and then "self certify as an investor" before they can watch a single pitch. Which could seriously hamper the website's growth—users are less likely to forward a video to other potential investors if they know the recipient will need to register and self certify just to view a short clip."

The regulation is conceived to protect investors but one of its unforeseen consequences in the age of online networking is that it does restrict the free circulation of ideas, essential to innovation today. Bizarrely, the regulation implies that only ‘high net worth’ individuals (assets of £250k + or income of £100k + per year) are wise enough to avoid scams and therefore can have access to sites such as cmypitch.com; obviously the UK’s FSA (architect of this regulation) was not around during the last dot.com boom else it would have set the threshold one hell of a lot higher!

So What?

UK government policy states that it is determined to make the UK more innovative and a better place to invest. If it is to achieve this then it is going to have to take a more holistic approach and ensure that all government agencies understand what this means and engage to remove barriers and stimulate and reward innovation.

We should treat potential investors as adults regardless of income or assets. Video pitches such as those on cympitch.com could contain a standard legal warnin as to the high investment risks involved, rather like we see at the beginning and end of films and videos re copyright etc.

Arbitrary income & asset limits such as those imposed by the FSA do not help to encourage UK citizens to take the risks we need to become a more innovative nation. I wonder how many more examples there are out there? Please let me know any you have come across or how other countries deal with the issue.

PS Surely a government agency restricting access to content to those with earnings above a certain limit contravenes basic human rights? I feel an email to the FSA and The European Court of Justice coming on…

How to Farm Lightning webinar

Thanks to all those who joined the "How to farm Lightning: sustainable innovation for a new era" webinar ealier today - your time and input is appreciated. If you missed it you can can catch the repeat here anytime - no password required.

The next (even better...!) webinar is 10.00GMT (11.00 CET) on Tuesday 22nd August - email info@brendan-dunphy.co.uk for an invite.

The thought piece "H2FL: Sustaining innovation in a shrinking world" mentioned on the call is available as pdf from this link. An updated overview presentation of all the key components of the program will also be available soon.

The 2-day public H2FL workshop hosted by Frost & Sullivan Ltd will run in London on August 11 & 12th. An outline of the workshop is here and online booking here. Further details and telephone booking can be made on +(44) 207 915 7878, or drop me an email or call, details right. Frost & Sullivan is heavilly discounting a second delegate if they are a partner customer or supplier-details directly from Frost & Sullivan on the above number.

More details on the program will be released in the coming days and made available from this blog and http://www.brendan-dunphy.co.uk/.

Happy innovating!

Innovation beyond the Product

What do we mean by 'innovation'? Scott Berkun in "Why Innovation Is Overrated" on the Harvard Business blog argues that the term "innovation" is vague and useless and we should be focsing on "making great things". I think that making "great things" will always be relevant but it is a very industrial-era concept that belongs to Edison. The world has moved-on and "innovation" needs to catch-up....here is my response:

"So, innovation is just about products is it? I don't think so. Making great things is and always will be relevant but the world has moved on I would argue that innovation is now much more than this.

With many 'commodity' products and services on the market the differentiation is often elsewhere, maybe in the way it is designed, built, delivered, serviced or in the business model used to connect with customers. Shelly Lazarus ( chairman and CEO of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide) recently stated that over 50% of the stock market value of corporations is now in intangibles. If correct, it raises the question of what role innovation plays in creating intangible value, beyond the product or service these firms sell?

I would argue Scott that rather than get bogged down in how the term “innovation” has been or is being used that it would be more useful to develop a more encompassing definition that better addresses the opportunities and challenges we face - economic, societal and environmental. We need a new definition for a new era, and that definition needs to go beyond the product and encourage and enable us to see the scope for and innovate in every thing we do to create value rather than just the next SUV."

Blue Ocean strategy and the Nissan Qashqai

Dan Blank posted on Blue Ocean strategy last week and its relevance to his industry, publishing. Here is my comment in reponse:

A good practical example of this thinking in practice that may help understanding is the Nissan Qashqai. I attended a Frost & Sullivan Ltd “Best Practice in Innovation Management in the Automotive Industry” workshop in Munich last week and the Qashqai was presented by Mr Hideto Murakami (Senior VP Nissan Europe R&D and Head of Total Customer Satisfaction division) as an example of “opportunity is in the gaps” ; this relates to the ‘blue ocean’ theory you describe.

Nissan’s market research indicated there was an unaddressed market space between conventional 4x4’s and other categories of vehicles. In essence, this segment was those customers’ that liked the styling of 4x4’s but wanted a smaller, easier to drive, more stable and fuel efficient alternative – the Qashqai was born (in Paddington, London in fact, built in Sunderland, UK).

Blue Ocean strategy demands a deep understanding of existing and potential customers (non consumers) as well as how existing products and services are actually used, why they are purchased or not etc. In my experience most firms, eve large ones, do not have this understanding and if they do they often lack the ability to turn these insights into desirable and profitable products, as their processes are inappropriate, designed for a different product era.

The Qashqai has several technological innovations ( eg the muffler is designed to act like an aerofoil to provide better traction) but of more interest to this discussion is the fact that it was designed and produced using x-functional and x-cultural teams, another innovation for Nissan, at least in Europe (a European product developed with Japanese DNA according to Mr Murakami). Maybe without this
parallel innovation in working practices and collaboration, the product would have failed to deliver on its promise? This suggests that spotting an opportunity ‘between the gaps’ is not enough as it may require parallel innovations in the way the product is developed if the strategy is to succeed; blue ocean strategy may also require new blue ocean capabilities.