Innovating To Win

The Right Tools

“Men have become the tools of their tools.”  -- Henry David Thoreau

On his blog, Practical Leadership, my friend Ken Flowers makes an observation about having the right tools for the job.  Certainly, if you have ever tackled a home improvement project like Ken describes, you will know exactly what he is talking about.  Of course, the plumbing task is just a foil for Ken’s point.

The same can be said about innovation.  As professional innovation practitioners, we develop a bag of tools that we use to address the innovation challenges with which we are faced.  Just as a skilled craftsman knows when to use a block plane and when to use a rabbet plane, the skilled innovation practitioner understands which innovation tool to apply to which problem.

Looking for freedom to operate?  Pull your patent analysis and IP work-around techniques out of the tool box.

Need to envision a next generation product offering?  It sounds like a job for your technology road mapping and system evolution predictive analysis tools.

Have a particularly nasty engineering contradiction to resolve?  Maybe it’s time to dust off your TRIZ inventive principles.

Problems are not created equally, and they do not all yield to the same tools.  You need to use the right innovation tool for the task to achieve optimal results.

Of course, this presupposes that your tool box contains more than just a hammer and a spanner.  Innovation practitioners need to acquire many different tools if they are to be effective at repeatable, sustainable innovation—tools of methodology and of technology.  They also need to practice with those tools so they when to use which method.

What’s in your tool box?

The Long Nose of Innovation

A very insightful article appears in BusinessWeek online titled “The Long Nose of Innovation.”  Written by Bill Buxton of Microsoft, the article discuss the fact that great innovations don’t just happen, but rather they are the consequence of many events leading up to the eventual introduction of the high-value manifestation of the concept.

Bill cites the examples of the mouse and RISC technology to show how the time between invention and successful delivery of an innovation maybe many years (thirty in the cases cited).  These are good examples and of course they are far from unique.  History teaches us that there are very discernable and predictable patterns of evolution that inventions follow as they mature.  One doesn’t have to look far to see the evidence of this in the many things we take for granted everyday such as electric light, digital photography, and so many other things.

Consider the lowly ballpoint pen…  The John Laud patented designs for a ballpoint type pen in 1888.  However, the state of ink making was not well enough advanced to allow his device to be practical.  It wasn’t until nearly 50 years later when the Brio brothers developed new designs and new ink formulations that the ballpoint pen took its next big step forward toward viability.

Invention is not enough.  Innovation is the process of deriving value from invention.  Where invention, application, and support systems intersect is where value, and hence innovation, is found.  This is the clear message of history that is played out time and time again in the present.

Bill closes his article with a particularly interesting observation.  He states, “To my mind, at least, those who can shorten the nose by 10% to 20% make at least as great a contribution as those who had the initial idea.”  Here, Bill has given some very good direction for innovators.

There is a predictable and visible future.  The elements that make up this future exist today.  The ability to see that predictable future and understand the path from immature technology to successful product is a high value component of sustainable innovation practice.  This ability is something that the average innovation practitioner is capable of developing through a combination of the right technical infrastructure aggregate a view into the current state of a technology and the application of proven methodologies for analyzing the evolutionary tendencies of technologies.

The value of the opportunities you will miss if you don’t integrate this skill into your innovation tool bag is huge.  (See “The Tyranny of Either-Or” for one such example.)  So now the question is, what are you doing to recognize and act upon opportunities to shorten the long nose of innovation?

[Diagram: BusinessWeek/Bill Buxton]

Reflecting On Past Innovations

Everything is new at one time or another.  Of course, nothing stays that way.  I am reminded of this everyday.  However, it is easy to forget the innovations of the past as progress continues at its every quickening pace and yesterday’s breakthroughs fade into obscurity.  I was reminded of this point when I read “Techno Samhain” by fellow blogger and occasional commenter on Innovating To Win, Jim Belfiore.  As I read the piece, two thoughts filled my head.

The first thought was how little many designers and innovation workers think about the past.  This is really a shame because all innovations build on the past.  If you don’t have a good understanding of the past and the patterns represented by that past, you won’t be able to capitalize on it or avoid the mistakes of your predecessors.  The appreciation of the past is at the core of many innovation disciplines.

TRIZ for example is a direct distillation of the past so to speak.  Many of the core elements of TRIZ come from a focused study of the past as represented by patent documents.  That past is distilled and captured in a variety of TRIZ tools that form the foundation of the methodology.

The other second thought was how quickly we not only forget but also devalue the innovations of the past.  I have seen numerous statements calling for the abandonment of the light bulb as the symbol of innovation.  Oh, how the once mighty light bulb has fallen in the estimation of the modern practitioner.

The light bulb and its attendant infrastructure ecosystem have been truly transformational in the impact that has been felt by mankind around the globe.  We have emerged from the dark, not only figuratively, but quite literally.  Yet in the span of 127 years, the incandescent electric light bulb has gone from liberating technology to trite and antiquated symbol of innovation.

Personally, I like the light bulb.  I think it represents a rich tradition of innovation and the transformational power that forward thinking can have.  Don't you?

China, Seagulls, and Innovation

What do China, Seagulls, and Innovation have in common?  Well, not a whole lot, or so I thought.  Last week, my good friend Isak Bukhman dropped by for lunch.  I always enjoy chatting with Isak.  He is a TRIZ Master, and we always have interesting conversations about TRIZ, Innovation, and global trends which influence the innovation landscape.

On this visit, Isak was telling me of his recent engagements in China.  It seems that there is a lot of interest in China these days in TRIZ and innovation.  As the tiger is waking it is aware of its laggard position in the global arena and is intensely looking for ways to change that.  Isak noted that China is struggling with the issues of intellectual property—what is it, how to play in the global community, how to not be hamstrung by the intellectual property of others.  There is particular interest in the methods of patent busting (a systematic approach to finding non-infringing workarounds in the face of blocking IP).

We also talked about how innovation software and TRIZ achieve similar goals.  TRIZ provides a structured way to lead the practitioner to a more expansive and comprehensive way of thinking about a problem and incorporating distilled innovation wisdom.  Good innovation software does the same thing.

So, where do Seagulls enter into the picture?  Coincidentally on the same day that Isak was coming for lunch, a funny post appeared on getFreshMinds.  The post featured this video of a clever crisp-filching seagull.

I don’t know that I would call Sam an innovator, but the clip did remind me that Isak does on occasion give copies of Jonathan Livingston Seagull to his students as a homily on creativity.  Certainly, we can all take from this latter seagull the lesson that perfecting innovation practice is a continuous journey of learning.

Predictable Futures: Using Patterns of System Evolution

Recently, a colleague asked me if the Patterns of System Evolution from TRIZ could be used by non-TRIZ practitioners.  At first the question struck me as being rather odd; it seemed sort of like asking if a map could be used by someone who was not a cartographer.  But as I thought about his question, I realized that a non-TRIZ practitioner might find some of the TRIZ tools mystifying.  However, the Patterns of System Evolution (Patterns for short), like many of the TRIZ tools, are useful to anyone.

The Patterns are very simple in nature, and yet some people find them challenging to apply.  Why is that?  For the novice, there is a generic challenge to applying some TRIZ tools.  The general TRIZ approach to problem solving involves a three step process: 1) convert the specific problem into a generalized TRIZ problem, 2) use TRIZ tools to identify a generalized TRIZ solution, 3) convert the generalized TRIZ solution into a specific instance of a solution for the original problem.  It is this last step that most people find challenging.  People tend to be very good at making generalizations, but most of us have difficulties mapping a generalization back to a specific instance.

However, the Patterns are well worth exploring despite this inherent challenge.  The Patterns can be very useful in tackling many important innovation tasks including: identifying next generation products, technology road mapping, and identifying new markets for existing technology.  How does this work?  First consider what the Patterns are.

The Patterns are a distillation of patent analysis that observe that different types of technical systems have a tendency to evolve in predictable ways.  An understanding of the Patterns coupled with knowledge of the system you are examining can give you a clear view in to the future.

Let’s consider a practical example.  One of the Patterns is that of Substance Segmentation.  What this pattern tells us it that in a physical system, a substance may begin as a solid monolithic substance, but in time will tend to be replaced by a discretely segmented substance, then a powder or liquid, then gas or plasma, and eventually a field of some type.  Examples of this progression are easy to identify.  If you consider a simple surgical bone saw, it is clear that the substance segmentation pattern precisely maps to the documented innovations in that technology—innovations such as coating blades with abrasive powders, using liquid water jets for cutting, and eventually the use of ultrasound and laser technology.

This sort of exercise is not merely of intellectual interest, it is of great practical value.  The TRIZ Patterns of System Evolution have been used repeatedly by innovation practitioners around the world to explore the predictable future.

TRIZCON2007 in Review

For me, Monday through Wednesday of this week were devoted to TRIZCON2007.  This is the annual international TRIZ conference organized by the Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies—the main body of the U.S. TRIZ community.  The conference features presentation from members of the global TRIZ community.

I usually enjoy sitting in on as many of the sessions as I can.  The content of the sessions is generally very rich and interesting.  This year, I was only able to attend the open keynote speech and two of the presentations.

For the opening keynote session Tom Johnson gave a very interesting talk titled, "The Means are Ends in the Making: Finding the Natural Pathway to Robust, Stable Business Performance."  The basis of the presentation was a comparative analysis of the structure and performance results of two automotive production operations based in the U.S. – one a Ford operation, and one a Toyota operation.  Tom’s thesis was that U.S. management thinking is uniformly driven by the Management By Results (MBR) paradigm, whereas the Japanese way of thinking is Management By Means (MBM).  Tom asserts that MBR leads to problems because it is an inherently unnatural model of looking at a business which should be treated as a natural system.  He feels MBM on the other hand leads to better overall results because it forces a more holistic approach to a business process by elevating the interactions in the process to a high level of visibility.  While the example reviewed in the session seemed a bit simplistic (probably intentionally so for presentation), there is no arguing with the notion that an approach that takes each function and seeks to optimize it in isolation will usually fail to achieve optimal balance.  On the other hand, an approach that consistently considers the whole system and the dynamics of people, communications, and process will tend to produce superior results.

I also saw a very nice case study presented by ShinHoo Choi of the Korean company LS-Cable.  The presentation considered an interesting technical problem in the manufacture of thin films which contained both technical and physical contractions to be resolved.

The last of the sessions I attended was focused on the application of technology S-curves and was presented by Xiaoling Shi of China’s Innovation Technology Institute.  For the most part, this session was a bit elementary, but I did like the way Xiaoling tied S-curves and technology maturity back to the notion of market maturity.

My own session on Knowledge Enabled Function Modeling was very well attended.  The audience was very engaged in the topic, and the post-session discussion with attendees was very gratifying.

The rest of my time was spent in various discussions with practitioners from industry and consultants concerning the state of innovation practice and where TRIZ fits into the innovation landscape.  All in all, it was a very good event.

Thinking TRIZ on Creativity & Innovation Day

Saturday was Creativity & Innovation Day.  I spent the day putting the finishing touches on my slides to be presented at TRIZCON2007 on Tuesday of this week.  The presentation shows how the application of advanced computational linguistics can greatly simplify the engineering task of function modeling.  I think it will be very interesting for those in attendance, and it is quite relevant to both TRIZ and non-TRIZ practitioners.

Of particular interest is a technique for opportunity discovery that I highlight at the end of the session.  The basic idea is simple, but the application is quite elegant.  Image you have defined a functional representation for your system (product or service).  You can then search a broad knowledge base (such as patent collections) for functional interactions between components of your system and components outside of your system.  Each so identified interaction represents a potential market extending opportunity.  With a little diligence, a breakthrough concept can be uncovered.

What did you do on Creativity & Innovation Day?

TRIZCON2007

The Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies is holding its ninth annual international conference, TRIZCON2007, at the Louisville Marriott Downtown in Louisville, Kentucky.  The event, to be held April 23th through 25th, is the premier TRIZ event of the year in the U.S.

I will be presenting at TRIZCON2007 and will post interesting news from the event.  The abstract of my session follows:

Title:  FUNCTION MODELING FOR THE REST OF US

Abstract:
To quickly move from problem to inventive solution, a clear understanding of the problem at hand is necessary.  The process of identifying the right problem statement is embedded at the core of both TRIZ and ARIZ.  Among the many tools available to TRIZ practitioners, function modeling is extremely helpful to achieve a deeper understanding of the system being examined and arrive at a clear definition of the problem.  Unfortunately, function modeling can be very difficult for the novice practitioner--thinking functionally is unfamiliar.

Recent advances in computational linguistics now make it possible for the TRIZ novice to approach the practice of function modeling with confidence.  By tapping into a broad “informational fund”, practitioners can leverage knowledge beyond their own personal experience and gain insights into the mereological and functional relationships required to accurately abstract their system for function modeling.  Expert TRIZ practitioners can also benefit by having a virtual subject matter expert supplement their creative insights.

In this session, the benefits to TRIZ practice through the application of advanced computational linguistics to function modeling are explored.

Can Structured Innovation Really Work?

Of course, many of us (me included) believe there is better way than stumbling around in the dark groping for that next good idea.  However, this way of thinking runs counter to the innovation mythology that we are all taught.  So it is no surprise that despite the urgent need businesses feel to leverage innovation, there are many skeptics.  The sentiments expressed in Geoff Ficke’s article “Is TRIZ the Magic Bullet Entrepreneurs Have Been Seeking?” are not uncommon.  Yet, there are still many waving the banner of sustainable innovation practice.  So, what is the reality?

From my own observations, it is quite clear that structured innovation is real and that it works.  But before delving too deeply, let’s clarify a key point.  Innovation and entrepreneurship are not the same thing.  Without getting too hung up on semantics, innovation is the process of arriving at a new solution to a need; entrepreneurship is the practice of delivering a new solution to a market.

The quest for a predictable way to drive innovation is not new.  It is driven by a new sense of urgency created by increasingly difficult competitive environments resulting from transformations of the global economic ecosystem.  The good news for companies, large and small, is that answers do exist.  Many companies have already begun building repeatable innovation practices and enjoying excellent returns on their innovation investments.

TRIZ is one of many tools that are available to organizations that wish to systematize their innovation practice.  It has a small but loyal following, but the size of its following should not be confused with its utility.  Unfortunately, it has been my observation that at times the TRIZ practitioners are the greatest obstacle to its proliferation.  Don’t get me wrong, there are very good TRIZ practitioners out there, for example Ellen Domb, editor of The TRIZ Journal and author of TRIZ for the Real World.  But the fact is many TRIZ practitioners discourage the admission of new blood into their community.  At TRIZCON 2005, I heard a very prominent member of the U.S. TRIZ community state “TRIZ was hard for me to learn, so it should be hard for others too.”  Fortunately, this has not prevented some companies from being wildly successful at building innovation competence.

Samsung, widely respected in their industry as being among the most innovative of companies, has followed a steady path in its evolution to what I like to call a high performance innovation organization.  Samsung embarked on this journey in 2001 by identifying two initial projects in the areas of semiconductors and printing to experiment with structured innovation practice.  The result of this experiment was 12 new patents and an annual savings of $10 million.

Spurred on by that initial success, Samsung then expanded the program by establishing four teams of innovation specialist and a training program to develop the skills for repeatable innovation.  These teams successfully lead 23 innovation projects in 2002.  Today, Samsung has integrated innovation skills training into their Six Sigma program ensuring the continued development of skilled and leveragable internal innovation experts.  An internal innovation knowledge port helps to disseminate captured organizational innovation wisdom.  This continued focus on organizational innovation competence has resulted in a dependable return on innovation.

This is of course the promise of a properly deployed high performance innovation practice.  These benefits can, and have been, seen by other organizations that make the commitment to becoming a high performance innovation organization.  The attributes of such an organization can be summarized as:

• Sustainable corporate program for innovation best practices is established
• Innovation is integrated into culture
• Hierarchy of innovation practitioners defined to maximize leverage of key skills
• Innovation skill is widely deployed
• Corporate knowledge assets are leveraged to support innovation

In summary, I would answer Geoff Ficke’s question, “Can a Structured System Be Taught That Results in Innovative Success?,” with a resounding “YES!”  There are enough proof points of the success of such initiatives to make that clear.  Organizations that have embraced sustainable innovation practice are enjoying the benefits of that commitment today.