Here are two videos of iPad users who you would probably not include in the typical group of users for such a device. Nevertheless the experience that this 2 year old kid and the 99 year old grandmother have with the iPad is once-in a lifetime experience. I think it is well worth your time if you invest the 10 minutes and just observe how they interact with the device.

A 2,5 Year-Old Has a First Encounter with An iPad

iPad Helps 99-Year-Old Woman Rediscover Writing

There is also a longer version available with an interview with Virginia.

After watching these clips of “extreme users”, you have observed two humans whose life has just changed:

• A 2 year old child who will never know what a world without tablet computers is like, and
• A 99 year old grandmother that becomes an active, creating part of a digital society.

And the core learning is: Contrary to many industry pundits and technology experts, users don’t care about multitasking or a webcam because the iPad opens up so many new opportunities for them that the device becomes a life-changer. These two videos are also an excellent starting point for a conversation in your organization what this new device category ultimately means for your business.

Nevertheless the question is not what application you could transfer to the iPad in the next 3 months. The ultimate question is: How can you solve your customers problems with this new device category? Which business opportunities will emerge with this new category of devices in the coming 18 to 24 months? How can you trigger new business opportunities and leverage existing ones?

New iPad applications: An opportunity for Customer Co-Design?

I have run several customer co-design workshops and the experiences I have made during these workshops confirmed that this is a useful approach to identify opportunities for product and service improvements.

In a customer co-design workshop you bridge the gap between designer (product management, software development, product design) and the customer by integrating the customer into the actual design process. This has the benefit that you don’t need to “extract” implicit knowledge from your customer but instead give him the tools and method to express his requirements.

The iPad is an an excellent opportunity to integrate customers into the design process and develop new ideas with your customers. And the best of all, you can probably do this by yourself:

1. Buy at few iPads – If you are not in the US you can either wait until they are available in Europe or tap into other sources (eBay, friends, your next business trip) to get a device.
2. Invite a few customers and use the iPads together with your customers, let customers explore the device and imagine how the iPad and applications on the iPad could help them solve their problems, run their business and enjoy life.
3. Brainstorm ideas, sketch prototypes for new applications and imagine different business models that utilize the iPad.

This is not a guarantee that you will indeed find the next breakthrough idea after one event, but it is a big step into that direction. Certainly the selection of customers is important and the workshop itself should not become an “all you can wish for” event but with the right approach it will help you find answers to the biggest question: How will the iPad impact your business?

Yet leadership is essential for successful innovation since not just processes, methods and techniques are relevant but the key is the creation of the right environment. This has a far greater impact on the success of innovation projects than jumping on the next creativity technique to generate new ideas. The problem that large corporations face is not that their employees don’t have good ideas – the problem is that they are reluctant of sharing them because the environment doesn’t support them.

Leaders for innovation projects should ensure that the environment allows the emergence of these ideas. The first step to better understand leadership is to understand the different types of leadership.

Leadership Styles: Coordinator vs. Innovator

One such taxonomy of leadership styles has been developed by Quinn in 1984 which identified eight leadership roles organized around the two dimensions flexibility vs. stability and internal focus vs. external focus as shown in the following figure.

The definition of these roles are:

• Innovator Role: The innovator is creative and inhibitions, encourages, and facilitates change.
• Broker Role: The broker is politically astute, ex-virus resources and maintains the units external legitimacy through the development, scanning, and maintenance of a network of external contacts.
• Producer Role: The producer is the task — oriented, work — focused role. The producer seeks closure, and motivates those behaviors that will result in the completion of the groups task.
• Director Role: The director engages in goalsetting and role clarification, sets objectives, and establishes clear expectations.
• Coordinator Role: The courting Nader maintained structure, does to scheduling, coordinating, and problem solving, and sees the rules and standards are met.
• Monitor Role: The Molitor collects and distributes information, checks on performance, and provides a sense of continuity and stability.
• Facilitator Role: The facilitator encourages the expression of opinions, seeks consensus, and negotiates compromise.
• Mentor Role: The mentor is aware of individual needs, listens actively, a sphere, supports the to be made requests, and attempts to facilitate the development of individuals.

Looking at this will it becomes obvious which kind of leadership style is supportive for innovation, change and empowerment off employees. Let’s dive a little bit deeper with another framework for leadership functions.

Leadership Functions: Directing vs. Empowering

Another approach to better understand the different types of leadership is to focus on the functions that leaders provide. Pearce et al. analyzed scientific literature and identified four types of leadership:

1. Directive leadership
2. Transactional leadership
3. 3. transformational leadership and
4. 4. empowering leadership

For each of these leadership types they have identified typical functions that are aligned with it:

Leadership type	Leadership functions
Directive leadership	· Organizing · Problem solving · Clarifying roles and objectives · Informing · Monitoring
Transactional leadership	· Recognizing · Rewarding
Transformational leadership	· Planning · Motivating and inspiring · Networking
Empowering leadership	· Consulting · Delegating · Supporting · Developing and mentoring · Managing conflict and teambuilding

Source: Pearce et. al., Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership.

The right leadership style for innovation

These two taxonomies of leadership styles help to understand which type of leadership is supportive for innovation. A flexible, internal oriented, empowering leadership style is necessary to help innovation teams achieve high performance where as a monitoring, controlling stability oriented leadership style will limit the emergence of breakthrough ideas.

Nevertheless concluding that externally focused, controlling leadership styles are useless would be superficial. A corporation is not just made up of departments delivering innovation but also of operations departments that staffed with managers who ensure that the corporation and administration keeps working. And there are enough projects in an organization that require a rigorous control and analysis as well as strategic projects that require externally oriented directors that present an organizations interest. Yet when you are aiming for innovation, when you are aiming to develop breakthrough products and services you will not succeed but creating a tighter controlled environment with more milestones and better reporting and a leader who wants to make decisions by himself.

Empowering employees, facilitating idea creation and experimentation as well as individual development of employees are necessary to lead an innovation team towards success. With these frameworks in mind it becomes easier to understand why it might be hard for managers in an organization to create innovative environments but it will also help to understand which group of managers can act as leaders for innovation projects and which group of managers is better in managing operational aspects within an organization.

Sources:

Quinn, R.E. (1984), Applying the Competing Values Approach to Leadership: Toward an Integrative Model

Pearce et. al. (2003), Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership

If you want to innovate, you should prevent such discussions because they lead nowhere. Of course there is a difference between a well-founded feedback session and polemic argument, but even the value of feedback is limited when you are truly innovating. Could anyone have imagined a situation like the one below?

Who would have thought that one day we would be communicating 140 characters at a time? At least not Mike Arrington, founder of Techcrunch, the largest technology blog online, who wrote in his first post about Twitter (which was still called Twttr at that time):

There is also a privacy issue with Twttr. Every user has a public page that shows all of their messages. Messages from that person’s extended network are also public. I imagine most users are not going to want to have all of their Twttr messages published on a public website.

If this was a new startup, a one or two person shop, I’d give it a thumbs up for innovation and good execution on a simple but viral idea.

But the fact that this is coming from Odeo makes me wonder – what is this company doing to make their core offering compelling? How do their shareholders feel about side projects like Twttr when their primary product line is, besides the excellent design, a total snoozer?

Today Twitter has become a global phenomen with 75+ million users and aims to become the number one platform for real-time conversations on the web.

Apple is the company that usually receives pretty bad feedback when they are releasing new products. Let’s have a look at the first comments about the iPod in the MacRumours forums, the number one outlet for Apple news:

Great just what the world needs, another freaking MP3 player. Go Steve! Where’s the Newton?!

I still can’t believe this! All this hype for something so ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player? I want something new! I want them to think differently!

Why oh why would they do this?! It’s so wrong! It’s so stupid!

We have all experienced the revolution of the music industry that was triggered by the iPod. Not much more needs to be said.

Fortunately, Marc Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, did not listen to his Harvard Professor’s recommendation either, who told him sincerely, that it doesn’t make sense to further pursue Facebook.

Of course, at that time I thought that social networking sites were a complete waste of time — both for the users and those developing the sites — so I earnestly tried to talk Mark out of squandering his precious Harvard education on such a frivolous endeavor. "You think you’re going to compete against Friendster and Orkut?" was the general outline of my argument. There were already too many social networking sites out there, I claimed, and building yet another one was clearly a waste of time. After all, didn’t he want to graduate? And make an A in CS161 while he was at it?

What is the key take away?

Nobody can predict the future and even the "experts" will never fully grasp the impact of some innovations when they where interacting with them the first time. You will always find somebody who can give you hundreds of reasons why it will not work. But the goal is not to find the idea that is not facing any obstacles – the goal is to find an idea that is worth overcoming these obstacles.

But maybe even more important: What does it mean when even pundits fail to predict the success of breakthrough products and services like Twitter, the iPod and Facebook? How much can you really trust the naysayers?

Innovation leaders and entrepreneurs need to be aware of this, ignore the pundits and focus on building traction for their ideas. While others are discussing, the leaders are acting. And even though one might fail, only by trying to invent the future you can achieve success. Solely discussing and predicting what the future might hold will never lead to a different future.

Facebook is a becoming huge and with 400 millions users it is currently the second most visited site in the US behind Google. Yet the biggest share in the “body of knowledge” about Facebook is about Facebook as a tool for social media, social networking and business – most of if superficial and not worth the effort to read.  But from time to time some smart people analyze the underlying patterns and contribute towards an explanation into a social motivation and behavior that makes Facebook such a success.

Robin Hunicke did a great speech at lift08 about Facebook as a game that makes you feel loved. A new perspective that helps to understand the dynamics and motivation to join and use Facebook. But there is still the question why are 80 million people growing virtual foods on a virtual farm?

The answer to this is given in the talk “Design Outside the Box” by Carnegie Mellon professor Jesse Schell who explains the Farmville phenomenon, how you can make millions of dollars with virtual money and lays out a vision of the future in which our lives will become one big role-playing game. The talk is 28 minutes long, it is worth every minute and after that you can skip reading mainstream articles about Facebook for the next year.

I have embedded the talk below, if you can’t see it watch it online.

This award is given each year to the authors of the article published in the preceding volume of the California Management Review that has made the most important contribution to improving the practice of management.

About the Article

In their article, Beckman and Barry outline four core elements of design thinking — observation, framing, imperatives (needs or design principles), and solutions.
They ground these elements of design thinking in models of how people learn, describing which learning style is best suited to each element of design thinking. By doing so, they provide a model for achieving innovation among members of a team with different learning styles. Their model can be applied across a wide range of sectors, from hardware and software products to services to architecture.

“The innovation process as a learning model suggests that teams be composed of individuals who are polar opposites in how they take in and transform information,” Beckman and Barry write. They add, “Good teams behave like bicycle racing teams, where individuals are assigned positions in the race because of their strengths, not because of seniority or some other measure.”

And here is a video that summarizes the core ideas from the article. This is also an excellent example how you can condense information from a 30 page article into a compelling 5 minute video.

Innovation as a Learning Process from Roger Shealy on Vimeo.

The best about this award is that the article is now available as a free download, so you can access it even if you don’t usually have access to the California Management Review.

Unfortunately the download is not free anymore, but you purchase a copy here, it’s a must read. You could also try to use Google with this search query and see if you find a copy online somewhere.

Are users stupid?

The first reaction that one might get is that you should invest in educating people what a browser is (a piece software to navigate on the World Wide Web) and what options they have available (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome and others). But maybe a better approach is to ask “Why don’t they know what a browser is?”.

Most users just don’t care

The reason why people don’t know what a browser is, is that they just don’t care about the browser. And why should they? People care about Facebook, Google and Yahoo but how to get to these websites doesn’t matter. And if you are not one of those that are heavily using some browser plug-ins you probably don’t see any differences in using different browsers.

Browsers are a commodity and a better browser is not enough

The key to understand the dynamics in this market is to understand that the available browsers are basically interchangeable because they are only marginal different. Of course there are differences in speed and compatibility but only power users who spend several hours working online can tell a difference – the majority of internet user can’t tell the difference.

The key to success is in creating a differentiated internet experiences

So if user don’t care about the how to get to Facebook and Google, how can you create a remarkable browser that people care about? The key is in re-inventing what it is that a browser does. Focusing on surfing the internet is not enough anymore. Opera is taking a step into this direction with Opera Unite which offers a wide range of additional services and functionalities to the traditional browser concept. It is too early to tell, if the Opera way of differentiation will be relevant to users, but the core idea is the right one – reinventing the browser.

How can we reinvent the browser?

I think it is still unbelievable that we are seeing such a strong growth of social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter yet there seems to be no integration into existing browser. Instead there is a range of companies that are developing desktop applications that integrate into these services and provide a differentiated social networking experience.

It is time that these services get stronger integrated into existing web browsers and instead of bribing users to download the new Internet Explorer 8, Microsoft should work on a tighter integration of social networking and deliver a different experience of surfing the internet. Now they have a real use to justify their investment in Facebook.

The question is as well, whether we really need to reinvent the browser or if it will become obsolete? What if social networking clients like TweetDeck and Seesmic will see continuous growth in the future and will become the main entrance point for users when they access social networks? You think that is a crazy idea? Remember, only 8 percent know what a browser is.

How do you see the future of the browser and the future of people accessing the Internet? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments.

Not your typical student project

The cooperation with corporate partners gives students the opportunity to work on real-world problems while learning how to successfully run their own design and engineering consultancy. The results are definitely interesting and inspiring; the following video resulted from a project with Nokia in 2006/2007 which showcased the future of “Open Internet Communication Culture”.

Another great example is a prototype that was built in 2006/2007 that re-imagined the center-console of a car as a massive touch screen. Some pictures of the prototype, the Pangea Interface:

Too futuristic? Not really. In March 2009, a similar concept was introduced in the new Tesla Model S, the much anticipated electric car.

If you would like to have a glimpse at the future, you are invited to the join us at Stanfor Design EXPE09. More information and registration is available at http://expe.stanford.edu/The preliminary program for the day:HSG310: Design Thinking & Business Innovation, University of St. Gallen

• BASF: Total Packaging Design for Printers
• Lonza: Harvest the creativity and the knowledge of the scientific community
• Swisscom: Services for Enabling Home Networking Adoption

ME310: Project-Based Engineering Design, Innovation & Development

• AUDI AG: HMI 2020 in collaboration with TKK (Helsinki, Finland)
• Autodesk Inc.: Exploring the Opportunities for Collaboration between architects, manufacturers, and contractors in collaboration with UNAM (Mexico City, Mexico)
• Foundation of Finnish Security and Safety Industry Development: Intelligent Fall Protection in collaboration with TKK
• Naked Green: Leveling the playing field for Alternative Fuel Vehicles in collaboration with TKK
• Panasonic: Making Dental Care More Fun & Effective in collaboration with HPI (Potsdam, Germany)
• Panasonic: Supporting Social Bonds and Friendship with Wearable Technology in collaboration with PUJ (Cali, Colombia)
• Robert Bosch GmbH: A Sensor System for 3D Measurement and Reconstruction in collaboration with UNAM
• SAP AG (Germany): Innovating the Work@SAP Experience in collaboration with HPI
• Telefonica (Germany): Mobile Pursuit of Vital Signs in collaboration with PUJ

CS210: Project-Based Software Design, Innovation & Development

• Microsoft: Making satellite imagery available for climate modeling
• Yahoo!: Improving the Internet Search Experience
• Facebook: Making the Facebook platform a more viable option for the enterprise
• John Gardner Center: Identifying opportunities for and implementing software to improve after school programs for youth

As you can see, these student projects from around the world are definitely not your typical student project. A large part of my activities at the University of St. Gallen are around a course called “Design Thinking & Business Innovation” that we have setup in a cooperation between Prof. Larry Leifer, Director at the Stanford Center for Design Research and Prof. Walter Brenner, Director of Institute of Information Management. Our students will be there as well, presenting their conceptual prototypes

Let’s get in touch!

If you are planning to visit the Stanford Design EXPE please drop me an eMail at bernhard@customer-experience-labs.com . Together with Sushi Suzuki, Ph.D. student at the Stanford Center for Design Research, we would like to give you a behind the scenes look of the design research and teaching at Stanford University. You should also have a look at the new course website at http://me310.stanford.edu/

This is obviously not rocket science but where are the real-world examples of companies that have reinvented themselves in a downturn?

Economic challenging times require a focus on customer value

There are some and my personal favorite is an analysis in BusinessWeek from May 2001 (Sorry Steve, Here’s Why Apple Stores Won’t Work) where the author outlines why Apple’s new retail outlets are not going to be successful.

[The] Problem is, the numbers don’t add up. Given the decision to set up shop in high-rent districts in Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, and Jobs’s hometown of Palo Alto, Calif., the leases for Apple’s stores could cost $1.2 million a year each, says David A. Goldstein, president of researcher Channel Marketing Corp. Since PC retailing gross margins are normally 10% or less, Apple would have to sell $12 million a year per store to pay for the space. Gateway does about $8 million annually at each of its Country Stores. Then there’s the cost of construction, hiring experienced staff. “I give them two years before they’re turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake,” says Goldstein.     

The pundits have been wrong, here are some of current numbers that show the success of the Apple retail stores (found here and here):

• Twenty percent of Apple’s revenue comes from the Apple Store
• Apple made $1.25B at the Apple Store in the fourth quarter of this year, which is 42 percent more than last year
• Apple makes $4,000 per square foot of Apple Store surface area every year

Reflecting on this example we can see that even though analysts and journalists believed that this is not the right way to go, it was obviously (or maybe luckily) a successful move. In a recession it is easy for everyone to predict the failure of new products, services or distribution channels. The article additionally shows how much you should rely on others to estimate the success of new products or services.

Indeed it is more difficult to launch new products and services in a downturn compared with boom times. Instead of building new products and services based on any random hype topic in boom times where value is defined investors, media or other entrepreneurs, new products and services have to deliver real value to customers in a recessions.

The world doesn’t need another social network which is merely a clone of Facebook, LinkedIn or Xing. What is needed in challenging economic times are transformational products and services that provide value to customers.

Of course the case study with Apple is not the only one, the UK Design Council, the national strategic body for promoting the use of design in business, has published an article titled “Designs to overcome a downturn – Facts, Figures and case studies” with several case studies where designers worked together with companies from different sizes and sectors to improve their performance during challenging economic conditions. The case studies that are presented are from Castle Rock Brewery, Thistle Hotels, McCain Oven Chips, HMV and Ian Macleod Distillers.

You should also check out the collection of other case studies that highlight the role of design in action.

So what is the role of the design in challenging economic times?

As we can see from these different case studies, approaching these situations with design in mind (in a sense of focusing on delivering “designed” artifacts) as well as with a design mindset (solving the problems through the eyes of a designer) can lead to successful re-definitions of value propositions.

Cost-cutting and trimming excessive resources has been and will be an essential approach to focus on the essential core of a business and to provide the necessary resources so that new products and services can be designed, produced and marketed.

If you think that this downturn is different and you do not need a designer to make your products “look nice” you should think twice. Making things look nice is not the job of a designer. Solving problems and providing value is one of the essential goals of design and looking at current problems from a different perspective might just provide the insight or solution that could prepare you for the next upturn. 

Image courtesy of [mikbaird] and [ihtatho]

It contains the elements to Human-Centered Design, a process used for decades to create new solutions for multi-national corporations. This toolkit has been designed to hear the needs of smallholder farmers in new ways, create innovative solutions to meet these needs, and deliver solutions with financial sustainability in mind.

While many elements of the toolkit are specifically tailored towards the specific questions one faces when innovating with and for smallholder farmers, it is a valuable collection that makes the sometimes vague human centered design process more concrete and therefore transferable and reproducible.

What I really like about this toolkit is that it differentiates between the design team and the facilitators. I think this differentiation and the active nomination of facilitators is one of the unique aspects in design processes and the transfer of design knowledge.

I see a lot of potential to create Human Centered Design Toolkits a specific company and certain industries. It is really helpful to narrow the focus and create a human centered design toolkit for the automotive industry, telecommunications industry or financial service industry.

More information about the toolkit

[via Nick Marsh]

]]> http://www.customer-experience-labs.com/2008/12/15/human-centered-design-toolkit-from-ideo/feed/ 0 http://www.customer-experience-labs.com/2008/11/10/fostering-an-innovation-mindset-in-organizations/ http://www.customer-experience-labs.com/2008/11/10/fostering-an-innovation-mindset-in-organizations/#comments Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:00:55 +0000 Bernhard Schindlholzer http://www.customer-experience-labs.com/2008/11/10/fostering-an-innovation-mindset-in-organizations/ Following Tom Kelley’s quote that "Innovation is not just a program, it’s a way of life" I have recently taken a closer look at the characteristics of an "innovation lifestyle", especially in organizations.

During this research I found an article titled "Fostering an innovation mindset" which defines an innovative mindset as a pervasive spirit that stimulates individuals and teams to create newness in all areas of an organization.

Here is an excerpt of the introduction:

You know a company with an innovation mindset when you see the way employees interact with one another. They treat one another with respect, admiration, and cooperation. They smile. They laugh. They express consideration and thoughtfulness. They listen. They focus on the benefits desired by consumers rather than on their own personal gain. They come to work with an optimistic enthusiasm, because they believe that what they do each day really does count. They focus on the future rather than on the past. They exude self-confidence, possess a healthy self-esteem, and believe in their own capabilities and strengths. They have faith in innovation and in one another.

Found in: "Fostering an innovation mindset" by Thomas D. Kuczmarski, based on his book "Innovation: Leadership Strategies for the Competitive Edge".