Jan 3, 2011 | Collaboration, Innovation, Marketing, Social Media
The Microsoft business model has resisted all efforts to introduce open innovation practices into its markets, and many would argue, has stunted its growth and innovative potential as a result.
How rapidly things can change, even when you resist from a position of strength.
Microsoft introduced “Kinect” in the US just before Christmas, with the objective of wresting back some of the gamer/activity market into its X-Box offering which has suffered at the hands of the Wii. At the heart of Kinect is a chip with advanced capabilities, and very quickly hackers have found how to add open source access those capabilities, and are starting to explore applications that would not have occurred to Microsoft, or would have cost too much to pursue.
U-Tube is being used extensively to communicate the astonishing stuff being done, this one being the use of the Kinect chip extracted from a Kinect device bought for $150, to create 3-D images.
The message in all this is simply that open source innovation that engages the crowd outside the boundaries of your ability to harness IP is the exploding as the driver of innovation.
IP is almost unprotectable nowadays, the management task is now a question in two parts,
- “How do we create the conditions for the development of Intellectual Capital around our “patch”? ,
- ” How do we evolve our business model and monetarise it?
Dec 16, 2010 | Innovation, Marketing
This formula is a pretty widely used one, and it can hold true both for a corporation, and an individual. At the intersection, where individuals are employees, it is doubly true, as failure can impact not just on the corporate coffers, but on the individuals prospects for advancement when the corporate culture frowns on failure.
However, the formula disregards the simple fact that many successful product innovations have the breath of life given to them for purposes other than what made them ultimately successful.
Consider that the oil industry was built originally on the use of kerosene as a lighting fuel during the 18oo’s, petrol was a valueless by-product until the internal combustion engine came along to make use of it, Velcro was developed so US astronauts would have a way of stopping things floating away in space flight.
There are thousands of examples, all pay little heed to the formula, as it is really hard to imagine all the uses for something new before the “crowd” gets their hands on it and exercises their ingenuity, so many products fail in their stated objective, only to succeed elsewhere.
Dec 13, 2010 | Innovation
A bit over a year ago, I conducted a “brainstorming” session designed to stir the creative juices amongst marketers and engineers in a fairly specialised manufacturing company. We did all the usual stuff, breakouts, whiteboards, butcher-paper, mixed in with some deliberately provocative questions and several guests who came in a gave a contrarian view of their world. All was captured electronically for reference, recall, and follow up as the initiated ideas were filtered and turned into projects.
A couple of weeks ago, we conducted a more formal follow up in another brainstorm about the value and progress of the initial effort, and it was clear that whilst it was pretty good, the “buzz” of the initial workshop had been compromised, the corporate culture of conservative engineering, personnel KPI’s and cost management had overwhelmed the creative energy of the initial effort. We toyed with ideas about how we might address this challenge, and decided to put a big whiteboard with fishbone diagrams of all the identified projects, along with post-it notes and pens in a walkway area between the factory floor and the offices, a point of continuous traffic by all personnel, and encourage all to add their 2 cents worth at any time. Seemed like a pretty good idea, and the first couple of weeks have been encouraging.
Yesterday, this link to “ideapaint” was sent to me, same idea, but it is like comparing a V-Dub to a Ferrari!
Nov 25, 2010 | Customers, Innovation, Leadership, Management
Innovation programs always throw up the word “adjacency” and it has lots of interpretations, depending on who is doing the talking. So here is my two bobs worth.
Measure each of the following parameters on a 1-5 scale, (or 1-10 for a more nuanced outcome) 1 being the same as current, 5 being completely different, requiring new processes and infrastructure. Have a debate about the scores, collect more data, seek council of those with a different perspective, as it is generally a qualitative score rather than one that can be easily quantified.
- Channels to market
- Current sales force knowledge and relationships in the adjacent market
- Behavior of potential customers, the factors that drive their business model
- Existing potential customer relationships and the barriers to entry/exit in the market
- The nature of the competitive environment. (A “Porter” type analysis often assists here)
- The strength of your value proposition
Nov 24, 2010 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Most new products fail, and most of these failures are almost predictable, particularly in fast moving consumer markets, where the adage that “you need to be prepared to fail often to succeed sometimes” is regularly taken to irresponsible lengths.
Following is a simple 6 point checklist, developed by trial and error over 35 years in FMCG. Failure on any one parameter should be a “whoa” sign to you.
- Is the market real? Will consumers actually but it, and what will they buy it instead of, are there enough potential consumers to make the product viable?
- Does the product deliver superior value in some way to consumers that is visible to them, and capable of being communicated simply and clearly?
- Can the product be competitive in the market?, are the margins satisfactory? Can you afford the brand and channel expenditures? how will the existing category incumbents react, and what is your response?
- Can your business be competitive? Are the processes and infrastructure in place? Do you have the sales force capable of selling?
- What is the Risk/reward profile of the investment for you?
- Is the product and its service infrastructure aligned with your strategy?
Some effort in answering these questions should yield an increase in the success rate, they constitute a good hurdle in the NPD process before you go far past prototyping stages.
When you need a hand, give someone with the necessary experience a call, preferably me, but if not me, someone else you can trust.
Nov 18, 2010 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Innovation, OE, Strategy
Only in physics, in personal relationships we seek common ground, people who under stand instinctively what we are saying and thinking, and who work the way we do.
Collaborative teams and alliances of many types often fail from the start because those who join, or are “volunteered” are similar, whereas in a collaborative team with a problem to solve, you need all types, and the processes to assist the management of the group need to be a part of the consideration.
You need at least one of each of the four behavioral extremes;
- Someone who is creative, out there, not too concerned with convention and how it has been done before
- Someone who is numbers and data driven, analytical, who seeks quantitative foundations for hypotheses and ideas
- Someone who just has to complete, they like to plan, and then work the plan to the end
- Someone who builds bridges, and can assist the relationships, both internally and with outsiders
These four types will not often come together without assistance, as they are very different, they see thing in conflicting ways, but to solve a problem, or make an alliance really work and create value for all, that’s just what you need, it is just harder to manage.
