Part 4 — In Search of Innovative Problems — Innovation Nation

Part 4 — In Search of Innovative Problems

Part 4 of In Search of Innovative Problems. Simultaneously published in five parts on this page, on my LinkedIn page and on the LinkedIn page of my co-author, Bradley Strock. We intend to conduct an ongoing dialog on finding problems and innovation. We invite your comments here on Innovation Nation (leave a Note by clicking on the ‘+’ that appears when you hover on the right side of the first line of any paragraph on the post on which you wish to comment) or on either of our LinkedIn pages.

Mining the Fertile Field

To identify the innovative problems, businesses must become astute customer observers, but not in the traditional sense. This point is a very fundamental and seemingly simplistic one, but it is at the very heart of developing a problem-seeking skill set. Businesses that develop new products too often believe that they know more about their products than their customers. This very concept becomes the mantra of many organizations. “We must constantly know our products better that our customers do, and we must create a culture that anticipates our customers’ needs even before they recognize them” is a typical corporate credo statement that many companies come to believe is necessary for their success.

In fact, it is the user base that knows the product best.

Customers almost always have much more experience than a business does with its own products, and their experience is always unique and intimate, real world experience that cannot be easily duplicated in research laboratories or by occasional use. Cycle testing can tell much about a product’s durability or future faults, but it is the customer who stretches the limits of a product’s abilities and capabilities and extends its use into new and unanticipated areas and environments.

Product improvements come from users. Two-thirds of minor improvements emanate from customers. Eighty-five percent of major improvements do the same, and virtually all first-of-type inventions begin with the customer. What better place to start the search for innovative problems.

As we said earlier, simply asking customers is insufficient. They don’t know or can’t tell you. You need to learn from your customers in a different way. You must spend inordinate amounts of time observing them as they interact with your products. But even massive amounts of observation are insufficient, if you don’t have a workable framework for that observation. That framework is the key to our methodology.

The framework began its life with a simple observation. We saw customers struggling to use electric hospital bed controls, becoming visibly annoyed but not complaining when they couldn’t get the controls to do what they wanted efficiently. We observed this more than once with different products. We inquired and found the responses very puzzling. The customers didn’t realize that they were becoming visibly annoyed. They had completed their allotted task successfully and did not perceive the annoyance that showed when things took too long or were too complex. But clearly they were annoyed.

About this same time, a series of informal discussions on innovation began to focus on a recurring theme — things that have not changed for long periods of time. A series of examples surfaced (hand tools like hoes, shovels and rakes; clothing irons and ironing boards; house gutters; incandescent light bulbs) supporting the notion that, if you could identify something that had not significantly changed for a long time, you were most likely standing in fertile ground for innovation. It was also observed that this kind of focused thinking was not the normal approach for identifying new innovation opportunities.

Putting these observations together, we recognized that things that took time, things that were complex and things that haven’t changed were ‘signposts’ for innovative opportunity. And thus the methodology for finding Type IV problems began to take form. We realized that we might have a theme for building the methodology – a set of signposts that marked innovative areas for inquiry. The phrase “things that” became our mantra for red flagging these signposts.

We continued to observe product and service users and to interview them about their interactions. We soon realized that there was a fairly extensive set of signposts that reoccurred when we probed the users. While individually users could not see the connections, we saw patterns of opportunity that were hidden from plain view.

Starting with a raw list of signposts that quickly grew in length, signpost categories began to emerge:

Signposts included things that:

1. haven’t changed in a significant amount of time

2. are repeated often

3. have substantial consequences

4. are slow or large

5. are expensive or price supported

6. are not mobile

7. are perishable

8. involve a high degree of complexity

9. address Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

10. are failing

This set of signposts is by no means complete but it does provide an umbrella for a significant number of subfactors that repeat often. We invite readers to help us expand the signpost categories that flag areas to search for innovative problems.

Things that haven’t changed. When something has remained essentially static over time, it is often a sign that the opportunity for innovation is near. The current solution has been accepted as adequate and competition is comfortable churning out relatively generic products or service solutions. While those in the industry may object to the characterization, products like the stapler; the broom; the electric fan (until Dyson took aim at the problem); the license plate (after over 100 years with essentially no innovation, South Carolina is developing an ‘internet appliance’ trackable plate); the beach towel (essentially generic until Vertty launched the less absorbent, quick drying, sand repelling, lighter weight Shape Shifter beach towel); and the plaster cast (keep a close eye on the 3-D printed exoskeleton brace from Victoria University of Wellington graduate Jake Evill) have had little change over a significant number of years or decades.

This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the invention of the zipper. In the century that has passed, the design of the zipper has remained essentially static. The materials of construction may have changed from metal to nylon but a zipper still works like a zipper. It still takes two hands and some fumbling to close. Until now. Under Armour, the sports clothing company, is introducing a zipper that can be operated one-handed. Perfect for any situation but particularly for the active, outdoor sports scene where hands are often busy holding other things or are sheathed in heavy, cumbersome gloves. The new design, developed by an engineer who watched his elderly uncle with weakening arm strength struggle to zip up his jacket, uses self-aligning magnetic clasps to secure the zipper ends and allow easy one-handed zipping.

Even in the fast-moving world of the Internet, disjoints between plateauing performance capabilities of current technologies and the ever-increasing user demand for increased performance can signal interesting problems to investigate. Just look back at Evan Williams’ observations and you will see that over a decade (which equates to eons in non-Internet years) certain tools have just not evolved.

Things that are repeated often. When something is repeated often, it should be automatically investigated for identification of Type IV problems. Repeated processes are often accepted for long periods of time. They become ingrained in the fabric of a business and become transparent or ignored. A single cycle of repetition may not involve a substantial amount of time or cost, but the cumulative effect can be quite significant. Mapping the process into its component steps and then observing users and customers can reveal Type IV problems lurking in the repetition.

Things that have substantial consequences. This factor includes things that involve a high level of risk; are inherently dangerous; tend to cause accidents; and things that are easily lost. When the consequences of using a product or service are substantial, the ability to identify hidden Group IV problems can create significant value and competitive advantage.

Things that are slow or large. When things take too long, many undesired outcomes can result. More errors occur; people have to wait; labor needs are intensive; and unnecessary, costly queues form. When things are too large, they take up additional space, are more difficult to transport and limit the positions and locations in which they can be effectively deployed.

Things that are expensive or price supported. When things are relatively costly or are perceived as expensive or are highly regulated or maintained under some sort of pricing umbrella, the purchase decision process can take longer or the product or service in question will be accessible to a much more limited audience. The market share of lower priced Android phones has grown rapidly under the relative lack of discounting of the iPhone. Real estate commission structures, auto dealership franchise laws and credit card transaction fees often reflect the absence of strong competitive forces, the presence of a regulated industry or a follow-the-leader pricing policy that will position you in an area ripe to identify Type IV problems.

Things that are not mobile. Often, mobility relates to size only and might then fall into the previous category of ‘large’. Just as easily, mobility can relate to things that require a fixed power or data source or things that are secured for safety or to avoid theft or have some other limitation that impedes the freedom to move about. Even more likely, size and the fixed nature of products combine to hide innovation opportunities. Transitions in telephones, computers, phonographs and radios over the years are exemplary. For years, phones were large and black and tied to fixed transmission lines. Desktop computers were large and tied to power (and later fixed data) lines. Phonographs were large and typically kept in one place. Recorded music in the form of vinyl records was stored in cabinets that housed the phonographs (and often a radio) or adjacent to the phonographs. Radios plugged into wall outlets and the family gathered around to listen to music, news and entertainment. Innovations like the ‘Princess’ phone and cordless phones, laptop computers, portable record players and transistor radios addressed the size restraint and extended battery life meant that computers, phones and radios didn’t have to be tied to fixed power sources. The Sony Walkman started the transition to mobile music. Wireless technologies removed the requirement for fixed data lines. Continued progress in miniaturization, digitalization and extended battery life led to a convergence of all these products into small, highly mobile devices that go with us everywhere and perform multiple functions — tablet computers with radio apps and all of your music; phones with computing, radio and music playing capabilities; tiny MP3 players loaded with music files; and a host of services that leverage all these new devices. Throughout this dramatic transition, lack of mobility has been the consistent factor that has led to the discovery of new problems that complacent consumers never envisioned or for which they never expressed a need.

Things that are perishable. We’re not just talking fruits and vegetables here but are focused on things for which value diminishes or dissolves with the passage of time. Airline, train seats, hotel and cruise ship rooms, vacation and car rentals have led to services like AirBnB, NetJets and Uber, concepts that are all about making more effective use of or effectively competing with large, fixed investments the value of which disappears if they are not timely consumed. When the wheels of the plane leave the ground, the unsold seats cannot generate any profit and the opportunity to increase the marginal profitability of the flight is lost. Look hard at any appointment-based or time-sensitive services and products.

Things that involve a high degree of complexity. Complex products and services usually mean that many things are happening at once. It also means that they may be difficult to use or understand. Complexity often occurs when things are subjective, when they have a large number of functions, when operations require multiple steps or steps that are not simple to execute, or where are too many middlemen in the process. Complexity provides ample opportunities for innovation. As a corollary, also pay attention when users signal that an information or service component is missing and would significantly improve the offering.

Things that address Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Well known 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow theorized a hierarchy of needs that people fulfill on a journey to self-actualization. As one ascends the hierarchy, the needs that are addressed are signposts for innovation opportunity. Things that cause inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, fear, danger, disgust or otherwise degrade the human condition should flag Type IV problem areas. “Things that annoy me end up fueling my ideas.” – Josh James, co-founder of Omniture, a web analytics company that sold to Adobe Systems for $1.8 Billion in 2008.

Things that are failing. In the long run, the failure of products and services is not an viable business option. When things don’t work well, are getting worse, are highly disorganized or require overly frequent cleaning or maintenance, you should realize that you are standing in a fertile field for finding Type IV problems.

Part 5/5 will provide a repeatable methodology for finding innovative problems and draw some conclusions on the search process.