Vi har flere gang her på MunkholmPlusRisgaard skrevet om crowdsourcing og tilgange til brugerdrevet innovation. F.eks. i forbindelse med hvordan de islandske politikkere bruger crowdsourcing metoder og platforme til at udarbejde lovgivning.
Jeg har fornyeligt set to eksempler, som viser to yderpunkter i arbejdet for at sikre brugerinddragelse for derved at få en masse ideer og løsninger på banen. Begge er politiske initiativer, som forsøger at få borgerne og organisationer til at bidrage.
An inspiring article from the website Fastcompany.com by CEO, Aaron Shapiro about how to go from talking about innovation to doing it.
He says:
These days, every established company is at risk of having its industry–and its own business–disrupted by a startup. Cognizant of this, companies devote a lot of time to talking about how important it is to innovate. But here’s the truth: most companies can’t innovate because everyone is paid to maintain the status quo.
He also put forward 10 ways how to shift from talking to doing:
Read the full (but short) article here
/ Peter Munkholm Nielsen
Igennem de seneste år og især under og efter den økonomiske krise har fortællingen fra politikere og erhvervsliv været at vi i Danmark skal leve af viden og innovation. Spørgsmålet er om vi kan noget i Danmark, som de ikke kan i Kina?
Jeg har prøvet at samle nogle af de styrker og udfordringer, som Kina står overfor i forhold til innovation dagsorden.
Styrker
Inden træerne vokser ind i skyerne skal det dog også gøres klart at Kina står overfor nogle udfordringer hvad angår innovation.
Udfordringer
Hvad konklusionen end er, så er det sikkert at Kina for længe siden har udviklet sig fra rollen, som verdens fabrikshal til at være en seriøs konkurrent til de europæiske og den amerikanske økonomi, hvad angår videnskabelse og innovation.
Læs mere om Kina og innovation:
A CEO’s guide to innovation in China
Three snapshots of Chinese innovation
Unleashing innovation in China
/ Peter Munkholm Nielsen
København er en by, som gerne vil være grønnere og mere bæredygtig end de fleste andre byer, men for at blive det er et vigtigt skridt at sikre nok bier i byen. Bier er, viser undersøgelser, en mangel i København. Men hvorfor skal man overhoved beskæftige sig med bier når store projekter og nye bæredygtige bydele i København bliver proppet med den nyeste teknologi. Jo, af den simple grund at uden bier ingen bestøvning af træer og blomster og dermed ingen grøn by.
For at imødekomme dette behov er den social økonomiske virksomhed Bybi (læs mere om Bybi her) blevet etableret. Bybi arbejder for at skabe bedre forhold for bierne i København. Det gør de ved at opstille bistader rundt omkring i København. Dette skaber ikke blot gode forhold for bierne, men også arbejdspladser til personer uden for arbejdsmarkedet, som f.eks. langtidsledige eller tidligere hjemløse. Overskuddet for den solgte honning går tilbage til Bybis aktiviteter, som også inkludere undervisning af skolebørn.
Bybis arbejde kan ses, som en en vigtig del af Københavns arbejde for at blive mere grøn og kan meget vel bliver en af fremtidens Københavns smarte løsninger for at opnå dette.
/ Peter Munkholm Nielsen
In the following, VIA Design – and their approach to design and innovation – will be discussed and at the same time explore design-driven innovation further.
VIA Design – yet another design and innovation consultancy[1] – is focusing on community-driven innovation, which has the focus on creating win-win situation and co-creation (Kjems, 2011, lecture).
An example of work by VIA Design, is their collaboration together with COWI for the Danish Prison Service: ‘Co-Creation in Danish Prisons’. Focus was to improve the work climate in two Danish prisons – through service design. The interesting part of this case is the process and the approach, and not as such the results. But the project resulted in various initiatives that increased employee wellbeing in the two prisons as well as better relations between employees and inmates. The safety and the atmosphere in general in the prisons were improved (DDC, 2011 & Kjems, lecture 2011).
The design part of process was based on design thinking and inspired by the following steps: understand, observe, define, ideate, prototype and test. In relation to design thinking the basics insights were that people were in focus, quick and often prototyping was essential and that communication should be real stories and abstract concepts.
VIA Design then used an adjusted version of this process with the following elements[2]: Aspiration, Discover, Objectives & Strategy, Solution and Anchor. Aspiration is creating mutual understanding through individual aspects, forum theatre and collages. Discover entails understanding conditions through observations, touch points and photo registrations. Objectives & strategy is focused on creating opportunities (e.g. through hypotheses and photo books) and specifying options (e.g. through analysis, directions and selection). Solution is about realizing and testing – for example with prototyping. Anchor is the communication of the projects, e.g. by spreading the words through press coverage, reports etc. (Kjems, 2011, lecture).
An important factor in VIA Design’s work processes in this case is the close relationship between the various steps – and the space created for iterations. Between the many steps several iterations are expected to take place. This is especially in the case of prototyping. Prototyping in this context is a crucial aspect, as the speed and agility of prototyping is one of the crucial elements of design thinking in general. The many iterations allows for getting even closer to users – and listen to their inputs in the development. Exactly design, development, prototyping and iterations are essential parts of VIA Design’s framework. As these occur simultaneously the process differs from design-driven innovation strategy. Verganti separates primarily development and partly also implementation of design into the three processes of listening, interpreting and addressing. Furthermore Verganti is to a higher degree focused on the development of design – as making sense of things. It is, according to Verganti, in meaning that innovation happens and design has a role to play.
It is observable in the process of VIA Design that in their perspective design is important in the whole processes and that design is about implementing (e.g. prototyping) as well.
Verganti is less focused on the actual product development, but more focused on the meaning development. It is necessary to first identify a vision – and then develop and finally implement.
It is arguable that VIA Design has incorporated some elements that are also visible in Verganti’s work. If the concept of meaning as understood by Verganti is applied to the prison case, it can be seen that the project might have worked with the meaning of prison as they present the prison a little bit differently than usual. This is for example visible as activities that might seem unfamiliar to prisons are introduced – for example: idea boxes, code of conduct (might exist to some degree) and boards of opportunities. This comparison might though become relatively forced.
Instead it could be interesting to take a brief look upon how the prison case would have been approached by a design-driven innovation approach. Of course it might again be forced to some degree, but will provide some insights of Verganti’s approach and also show the difference to VIA Design’s approach.
With a design-driven innovation approach, the primary actors would most likely the Danish Prison Service, as they are the ones offering what might be called ‘service’. They are the agents ensuring the prisons functionality. They should initially identify their socio-cultural context and the design discourse that they are a part of and afterwards identify interpreters and key interpreters that are asking the same questions. These could for example be researchers, representatives of legal system, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and many more. The Prison Service should following engage in dialogue and listen to interpreters, followed by for example Design Direction Workshops or other ways to interpret and shape a novel vision. Finally focus should on addressing this vision to important stakeholders – for example civil servants, politicians and the greater public. The key is basically to explore whether there is room for innovating the meaning of prisons – and propose a vision. If applying this to the earlier discussed innovation framework of Verganti, the innovation will probably be radical in meaning while incremental in technology. Incremental in technology because if radically changing prisons and the meaning of prisons, it will most like be a socio-cultural and design discourse issue – and not as much a technological issue.
VIA Design, IDEO and other design consultancies might furthermore have a place in Verganti’s framework as interpreters. Their competencies in for example understanding users can be very useful for the listening process (e.g. Barilla included IDEO in this phase). Design thinking approach might have some very valuable insights into the design discourse.
There might exist an issue when trying to compare VIA Designs work with Danish prisons and Vergantis research of companies. The one is focusing on a societal level & service design and how to increase the quality while the other is looking upon companies and their products. Further as shown when applying design-driven innovation to the prison case, it is obvious that this approach might not fit perfectly to service design.
Commoditization (as briefly mentioned above) is becoming more and more apparent and is challenging many companies – especially in the developed world. Design-driven innovation might be a way of escaping the trap of commoditization.
A popular topic in modern management frameworks is outsourcing. Outsourcing is in the present context understood as the activity when a company is transferring internal processes to an external partner (often another company). It is here of high importance to underline that the process should be performed in-house and thereby have a history inside the company.
If following this definition of outsourcing, it might be arguable that outsourcing is not having a critical significance the design-driven innovation strategy. Even though designers in some cases (e.g. Alessi and Michael Graves) might be seen as external partners, it is not outsourced as this exact activity has been performed in-house. Though the designers are still not necessarily in-house employees. In some cases the designers are hired on a project-to-project base (e.g. again Alessi), while in other cases the designers are permanently employed (e.g. Apple’s Jonathan Ive and FIAT’s Giorgietto Giugiaro).
When comparing to the IDEO-approach as introduced by Tim Brown as well as the VIA Design, companies are actually outsourcing their innovation and product development to IDEO and their multidisciplinary teams or to the design facilitators in VIA Design.
In design-driven innovation, outsourcing will additionally be difficult as so much of the potential success is directly related to the company’s assets – e.g. relational assets. These cannot be outsourced – and as the driving agents behind design-driven innovation are top management, outsourcing is becoming almost impossible. Radical innovation of meaning demands much more than just product development and development in general (cf. the processes of listening, interpreting and addressing) – so the incremental innovation process of design thinking is probably better suited for outsourcing. Perhaps a reason for why so many design thinking consultancies exists in the marketplace.
- Brown, Tim. “Design Thinking.” Boston: Harvard Business Review, June 2008
- Danish Design Center – http://www.ddc.dk/case-cs/kriminalforsorgen-samarbejde-pa-tvaers-af-tremmerne – retrieved 22/1 2012
- O’Connor, E. S. (1996) “Lines of authority – Readings of foundational texts on the profession of management”, Journal of Management History 2(3): 26-49
- Søderberg, A. M. (2003). Sensegiving and sensemaking in integration processes: A narrative approach to the study of international acquisitions. Narrative Approach in Organizational Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
- Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (4th edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Verganti, Roberto, “Designing Breakthrough Products”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, Issue 10, 114-120, October, 2011.
- Verganti, Roberto, “Innovating Through Design”, Harvard Business Review, Volume 84, Number 12, 114-122, December, 2006.
- Verganti, Roberto, Design-Driven Innovation – Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating what Things Mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009
- Walter Isaacson, ‘Steve Jobs’, Simon & Schuster, 2011
- Westland, J. C., (2008), Global Innovation Management, University of Illinois at Chicago: Palgrace Macmillan
[1] IDEO is as a consultancy as well as Verganti also has a consultancy; PROject Science
[2] Origin of this process is unknown
In successful breakthrough innovations of meaning, the top executives have a unique influential role in driving and pursuing design-driven innovation strategy. When pursuing design-driven innovation strategy, the top management must be advocate of the new meaning and the visions proposed. The processes of listening, interpreting and addressing are all more or less related to top management – and especially the success of the addressing part is reliant on on the top management. In this sense top management is a part of the design-process, when design is seen as making sense of things. But the top management is not designers – and should in the perspective of design-driven innovation strategy not be designers.
Other innovation frameworks also integrate design. One of these is design thinking (which has been briefly mentioned above), which in the following will be briefly compared to design-driven innovation strategy.[1]
Design thinking and design-driven innovation are very different approaches and causes different outputs of innovation. Where design thinking is more focused on the customer & users, design-driven innovation is more focused on the meaning. To put it more directly design thinking gives the customer what he wants, while design-driven innovation gives the customer products, he did not know he wanted.
In design-driven innovation strategy, customers might be viewed as audience as companies proposes a vision to them. The key here is the proposal. Companies bring forward a vision to the audience (e.g. potential customers) – a proposal of how the company envision the future. An example is Apple’s MacBook Air, where Steve Jobs envisioned that the customers would not miss the disc drive. This underlines design-driven innovation as a push-strategy with the intention of modifying and altering the present. Verganti does not support the idea of listening to users – and for example applying market research and focus groups when trying to innovate and win in the market. If getting to close to the customers or users, companies might be trapped into the current meaning – and not seeing novel, potential meanings. Getting close to the user might though be good for driving incremental innovations.
Listening to users would for example have encouraged Nintendo to make better controllers and graphics (as did Sony & Microsoft) – and not to innovate the meaning of video gaming as they did with the Wii
Each approach creates different kinds of value for the customer. Design-driven innovation for example creates meaning in the sense that the products have more to offer than function while design thinking creates a utilitarian and functional experience while using the products. The customer is usually surprised when dealing with design-driven innovation. Fundamentally design-driven innovation creates value by innovating meanings and design thinking by innovating interactions (e.g. with the products).
From a design-driven innovation perspective, design thinking is good for incremental innovation by giving the market and the users what they are expecting.
For design thinking managers need to be designers, while following a design-driven approach means that the managers should understand design – and its highly valuable potential. An example is Verganti’s comparison of executives and art dealers. The executive does not need to be an innovator, just as the art dealer does not need to be an artist (Verganti, 2009; 223).
The role of design is apparently different in the two concepts. For Verganti and design-driven innovation, design is about making sense of things. It is about the meanings – for example of products.
In design thinking – as expressed by Tim Brown from IDEO, a proponent of design thinking – design is a way to understand what people want and need in their lives and what they like or dislike about the way particular products are made, packaged, marketed, sold, and supported. The designer has a key role, as the sensibility and methods of the designer are applied to match peoples needs with what is technologically feasible (Brown, 2008).
So in other words, the designer has a key role in design thinking as the sole actor in developing concepts – while in design-driven innovation the designer is one of many interpreters. In design thinking the manager should become designers, which is not supported by design-driven innovation strategy. It is here clear that the role of the management is different.
In design thinking the manager needs to be more hands on – and a part of the design process, while in design-driven innovation the manager is supposed to propose visions while emerging in and addressing the design discourse and life context.
The role of the designer in design-driven innovation is to a high degree the role of a key interpreter that it is responsibility to the management to attract to the company. The designer is for example presented by the vision addressed by the top management – and perhaps invited to embody this vision in a product. This could for example be the case of how Giorgietto Giugiaro, the designer of the FIAT Panda, was asked to follow and realize CEO Carlo de Benedetti’s vision of a city car.
The manager is in design-driven innovation seen as top management with the potential of sensegiving, which is about constructing the boundaries wherein the employees can and are encouraged to create meaning for themselves (sensemaking) (Søderberg, 2003).
Design-driven innovation strategy provides top management with an important and decisive role as being the key to enabling breakthrough innovation. Without an active top management design-driven innovation is not possible. As shown above, it is the responsibility of the top management to immerse into design discourse and for example address interpreters with the novel vision. Subsequently it is also the top management that should do the research and listen to interpreters as well as being part of the interpretation. Hence the top management is the producers of the novel vision. This gives the top management a clear authority as well as a position very different from the rest of the company.
If following this argument the top management is actually given license to act much more differently than the rest of the company. It can be argued that the top management will act perhaps more emotional but at least more per instinct. The top management is by this approach the visionary with a unique understanding of the design discourse – following there might not be room for divergent understandings. It can be argued that the mantra in a company like this will be that is the way of the top management – or no way at all. The following will take the leadership style of Steve Jobs as example of questionable though successful management.
Verganti uses often Apple and Steve Jobs as examples of design-driven innovation performed successfully. Jobs through for example the iPod and the iTunes ecosystem innovated the meaning of portable music – and perhaps even music playing in general. This is much (and also by Verganti) acknowledged as the result of Jobs’ extraordinary skills in proposing novel visions. But on the other side Jobs has also been described as authoritarian, controlling, rude, tyrant, narcissist and much more (Isaacson, 2011). Verganti’s framework does not take these factors into account (and perhaps he should not). Top management might drive breakthrough innovations of meaning (as Jobs), but on the way destroy employees and others (again as Jobs).
This if course not the case off always the result of design-driven innovation strategies, but at least something to be aware when the top management is this uniquely presented and perceived as highly visionary – and perhaps even as a guru (to use a highly inflated concept).
Some of the concepts here of giving top management the complete control of how to develop vision etc. might also collide with some of the otherwise often praised characteristics of management in the post-industrial society: Supportive & engaging, participative, flat, open and inclusive. The authority and control from a design-driven innovation management might not be aligned with these – and possibly create tensions. The unique and solitary vision of meaning from the manager might encourage control to ensure that the top managements vision is driven through the organization. Control is to a large extent a key characteristic of management in the industrial economy – for example: Taylor’s time and motion studies & scientific management, homo oeconomicus and Fayol’s 5 principles of management: planning, organizing, leading, commanding & controlling (O’Connor, 1996).
Here it would probably be crucial to ensure that employees are not feeling pressured and controlled – and still allowed space for being creative and innovative in designated areas, so the overall vision of the top management is not corrupted. This is especially the case of the relationship between top management and the designer.
The designer will perhaps receive more or less free hands from top management – as long they are aligned with top management vision. This is for example the case of Alessi where the designers received general directions, but following were to work independently in the in listening phase (Verganti, 2006).
This focus on independent work is very different from the design thinking method propagated by IDEO, where focus is on multidisciplinary brainstorming.
- Brown, Tim. “Design Thinking.” Boston: Harvard Business Review, June 2008
- Danish Design Center – http://www.ddc.dk/case-cs/kriminalforsorgen-samarbejde-pa-tvaers-af-tremmerne – retrieved 22/1 2012
- O’Connor, E. S. (1996) “Lines of authority – Readings of foundational texts on the profession of management”, Journal of Management History 2(3): 26-49
- Søderberg, A. M. (2003). Sensegiving and sensemaking in integration processes: A narrative approach to the study of international acquisitions. Narrative Approach in Organizational Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
- Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (4th edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Verganti, Roberto, “Designing Breakthrough Products”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, Issue 10, 114-120, October, 2011.
- Verganti, Roberto, “Innovating Through Design”, Harvard Business Review, Volume 84, Number 12, 114-122, December, 2006.
- Verganti, Roberto, Design-Driven Innovation – Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating what Things Mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009
- Walter Isaacson, ‘Steve Jobs’, Simon & Schuster, 2011
- Westland, J. C., (2008), Global Innovation Management, University of Illinois at Chicago: Palgrace Macmillan
[1] For references related to design thinking please see Brown, 2008.
Roberto Verganti’s work of design-driven innovation strategy is an example of how to pursue radical innovation – and thereby sustain a long-term competitive advantage.[1]
Verganti approaches innovation differently than the usual innovation strategies. These strategies often see innovation from a technological perspective, where the innovation is understood technological – and perhaps also market-wise (see for example innovation classifications for traditional classifications of innovation, which Verganti describes as 1-dimensional).
For Verganti radical innovation is not only a question about disrupting technology or market capabilities. Instead radical innovation is about innovating meaning – and how to propose innovations to customers that they did know they needed.
For Verganti it is necessary for companies to innovate more than the utilitarian dimension of products. Meaning, the second dimension of products, must also be innovated to sustain competitive advantage.
Verganti organizes his understanding of innovation around innovation in technology and meaning with either incremental or radical changes, and three different innovation strategies: market pull, technology push and design-driven innovation strategy (See below for the innovation framework).
The innovation of meaning is the factor that to a large extent drives sustained competitive advantage – and also what differentiate Verganti’s approach from many other innovation strategies.
According to design-driven innovation strategy all products have a meaning. This meaning evolves around symbols, identity, emotions, language, culture and more. Meaning in this context is the reason why people are using a certain product – reasons based on sociocultural, emotional and psychological foundations. This is related to the understanding of design as making sense of things.
The point of looking upon innovation of meanings is that this can create long-term sustained competitive advantages as new, innovative meanings can alter the entire marketplace – and make customers choose products based on other criteria than earlier. An example of radical innovation in meaning is Nintendo’s game console Wii. Nintendo changed what a gaming console meant for the users – from being an inactive activity in a virtual world, playing video games being a highly interactive and active activity in the real world. The user became the centre of the activity, which is visible in commercials for Wii where users are shown – and not the games.
The meaning of objects is a combination of symbolic (value for others) and emotional (value for yourself) value. This meaning is basically intangible, but has some tangible relations: e.g. language, story, design and materials. Language can be material, texture, smell, name or form.
Meaning is important for companies as people buy meanings – and not solely products for its utilitarian use. It is also worth mentioning that innovation of meaning does not need to be radical all the time. But to keep competitive in the long-term, incremental change of meaning is not enough.
As briefly touched upon above innovation of meaning is highly related to the sociocultural regime. And this relation is important for the process of design-driven innovation strategy – as the innovation process is becoming broader and more open towards the external society than many other innovation frameworks.
Design-driven innovation cannot take place independently and secluded – external relations are a necessity for successful radical innovation of meaning. It is impossible to present a proper proposal and modify the context without external relations.
If innovation of meaning is taking place within a current sociocultural regime the innovation is incremental, while it is radical innovation of meaning if the innovation of meaning creates an entire new sociocultural regime.
Sneakers and leather shoes have various meanings, though they both to a large extent provide the same utilitarian function. McDonalds change the meaning of restaurant and diners to become a place that could be counted on with regards to cleanliness, menu and reliability. While the FIAT Panda changed the meaning of a city car to transformability, adaptability and versatility. Swatch changed the meaning of a watch from instrument to a fashion accessory. Finally Apple changed the meaning of music with the introduction of the iPod and the iTunes platform. See Innovation framework examples for some examples of innovation inserted into the innovation framework – where Microsoft is appearing as the only example not performing a design-driven innovation strategy.
As mentioned above, design-driven innovation strategy can provide a sustained long-term competitive advantage.
Meaningful products can be sold with a premium, as consumers are willing to pay more when they can see a higher meaning (intangible value) than just a utilitarian function (tangible value). Here the point is that value is coming from differentiation, which is necessary in a global world of increased commoditization. See also this about value tangible and intangible.
Furthermore companies often struggle with appropriating their innovations and ensuring their products are not imitated. But meaning cannot be imitated as the meaning is closely linked to the company and the brand. An example is Alessi’s product Kettle 9093, which were designed by Michael Graves in 1985, but later imitated by the same designer in a collaboration with retail giant Target. Despite of the cheaper imitation by the same designer, the Alessi continued selling a large number of the Kettle 9093. Another example is how FIAT Panda was highly successful for many years despite the introduction of a cheaper imitation by SEAT.
Additionally investments might be smaller as a large part of the innovation and research is established and pursued together with the external network.
Finally meaningful products tend to have higher product longevity as the product are differentiated to a much larger extent as a result of their unique meanings. This is for example again a case of Alessi’s Kettle 9093 and the FIAT Panda. The FIAT Panda continued to be market leader for several years in the city car segment.
See more examples of the value of design-driven innovation here: model of value
Technology epiphanies are an interesting aspect of design-driven innovation strategy. This concept explores how technological breakthroughs cannot stand alone – but needs to be followed by a change in meaning too to be highly successful in the marketplace. In new technologies there is often a potential of ‘quiescent meaning’, which is awaiting discovery – a technology epiphany is this discovery. This ‘quiescent meaning’ could for example be found in MEMS, the technology inside the Wii controller produced by STMicroelectronics. STMicroelectronics struggled with selling their MEMS technology, which was perceived as effective, but perhaps with no use by other companies. But first with the discovery of its ‘quiescent meaning’ in relation to gaming, the technology became highly successful. Furthermore this case is interesting as the technology supplier (STMicroelectronics) moved first and not Nintendo. The implications of ‘quiescent meanings’ are that for example companies should be open for discovering the real value and meaning of new technologies and that this combination of technology-push and design-driven innovation should be explored further.
When dealing with innovation of meaning and design-driven innovation strategy it is necessary to take a wider look than just a product perspective. The company must acknowledge that it is a part of a larger context. The company needs to get involved with the surrounding environment and be a part of for example social and cultural development.
A company is never alone when trying to understand the surroundings. Other actors are also trying to make sense of society, culture and technology. Another key concept is the design discourse, which is exactly this external research process of these many various actors. Verganti calls these actors interpreters. All companies are surrounded by these (often non-competing) interpreters, who are interested in the same questions, contexts and design discourse and might also be trying to influence the future meanings of these aspects.
This can be as a collective research laboratory, where interpreters are exchanging insights, ideas, findings, visions and proposals of new meanings.
Interpreters are divided into two groups of production: cultural production and technological production. Interpreters into cultural production can for example be artists, cultural organizations, media, sociologists and marketers. Interpreters into technological production might be research and educational institutions, technology suppliers, participants in pioneering projects (which often are top interpreters), companies in other industries, designers, retailers, delivery companies and as well as users. As it can be seen here there is a room for users in design-driven innovation strategy, but they have the role and focus as many other actors. Users are not enjoying a unique favourable position.
It is also noteworthy that designers might be one of these interpreters, but they are not the only ones – and therefore it is crucial not to rely exclusively on them and thereby creating a designer-driven innovation strategy. This can especially be seen as a critique of design thinking.
This entire collection of interpreters in a form of collective research laboratory is showing how all companies are parts of a design discourse – though a company might not be aware of this. In design-driven innovation strategy it is crucial to have knowledge of how people might give meaning to things and products as well be able to seduce interpreters with a novel proposal for new meanings.
Every company has a unique network of relational assets to these interpreters. A reason for why design-driven innovation has difficulties in being outsourced.
For a company to understand which design discourse it is being a part of, it is necessary to look upon what essential life contexts they are into. This will perhaps assist in realizing that interpreters are much broader than firstly acknowledged – for example the case of Barillia (a manufacturer of pasta) who invited several heterogeneous interpreters to assist them in looking into how people use kitchens.
Without engaging with interpreters in the context of a design discourse, radical innovation of meaning cannot take place. In the engagement with interpreters and the design discourse three activities are introduced: Listening, interpreting and addressing. This is to some extent the how of design-driven innovation strategy.
Listening to the design discourse is about identifying the multiple voices that exists in the context of the company. There is a need to identify key interpreters that can give the company access to both knowledge and seductive power, so the design discourse can be opened up towards the vision of the company. These key interpreters are often forward-looking researchers who are exploring one specific vision in-depth. A key insight is that advances are based on achievements of others and therefore making it recommendable to learn from and build bridges to other industries. Here to types of bridges are visible: Brokers and mediators. Language brokers are looking into knowledge about meanings that is invisible and inaccessible for the company. Mediators provide access to other interpreters – and not knowledge as brokers. Listening also entails active participation – it is essential to immerse in the discourse (e.g. through workshops, projects etc.). When identifying interpreters, a company must be aware that a design discourse is both local and global and to attain competitive advantages it is often critical to find international interpreters. For key interpreters it is often not a matter of money to be involved in the design discourse. Instead they can be attracted through experimentation ground, seductive power and knowledge of meanings. It is here clear that a company needs to have vision by themselves so they become key interpreters with something to offer to other key interpreters. To sustain radical innovation in meaning it is necessary to keep refreshing ones network and relational assets.
Interpreting the design discourse is about sharing and turning knowledge into novel visions. One way to do this is through Design Direction Workshops (as done by Barilla). This is the process of creating proposals and visions based on the knowledge from interpreters
The key activities are first envisioning scenarios, visions and proposals, second sharing these insights, third connecting the insights, fourth selecting the ideas to pursue further (e.g. Alessi’s formula of success) and fifth to embody these new meanings that emerged.
Addressing the design discourse is about diffusing ones novel visions and proposals to interpreters and thereby prepare the market for new meanings. In other words, prepare the ground for changes. This can be done through cultural production (as Alessi) such as books. It is crucial that these productions are viewed upon as research outputs – and not marketing material.
As seen here it takes various unique capabilities to perform and pursue a design-driven innovation strategy. In short three capabilities are necessary: build relational assets with key interpreters, leverage internal assets (own knowledge and seductive power) as well as exploring the interpretation process.
It is recommended to establish a design-driven lab to drive some of these activities, but another is essential to perform breakthrough innovations of meanings and that is the role of the top executives.
Further reading:
- Brown, Tim. “Design Thinking.” Boston: Harvard Business Review, June 2008
- Danish Design Center – http://www.ddc.dk/case-cs/kriminalforsorgen-samarbejde-pa-tvaers-af-tremmerne – retrieved 22/1 2012
- O’Connor, E. S. (1996) “Lines of authority – Readings of foundational texts on the profession of management”, Journal of Management History 2(3): 26-49
- Søderberg, A. M. (2003). Sensegiving and sensemaking in integration processes: A narrative approach to the study of international acquisitions. Narrative Approach in Organizational Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
- Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (4th edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Verganti, Roberto, “Designing Breakthrough Products”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, Issue 10, 114-120, October, 2011.
- Verganti, Roberto, “Innovating Through Design”, Harvard Business Review, Volume 84, Number 12, 114-122, December, 2006.
- Verganti, Roberto, Design-Driven Innovation – Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating what Things Mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009
- Walter Isaacson, ‘Steve Jobs’, Simon & Schuster, 2011
- Westland, J. C., (2008), Global Innovation Management, University of Illinois at Chicago: Palgrace Macmillan
[1] The following is based on Verganti, 2009, Verganti 2006, Verganti, 2011 and lecture by Verganti, 2011
Nye tal fra Danmarks Statistik viser at de danske virksomheder er blevet mere innovative, hvilket betyder at andelen af innovative virksomheder er steget 3 procentpoint fra 44 % til 47 % i 2008-2010. Det er især proces innovation (f.eks. nye produktionsprocesser og nye logistik- eller leveringssystemer), som er steget mest med 4 procent point til 25 %.
Danmarks Statistik har slået proces- og produkt innovation sammen til PP innovation. Dermed viser deres tal at 35 % enten har udviklet nye produkter eller processer.
Hvad er interessant er at hele 57 % af produktinnovationerne er udviklet internt i virksomhederne og 31 % er udviklet i samarbejde med andre virksomheder eller institutioner. Dette viser at den megen opmærksomhed omkring Open Innovation stadig ikke er slået igennem. Dog er tallene fra Danmarks Statistik fra perioden 2008 til 2010. Det kan tænkes at når tallene fra 2011 og 2012 foreligger vil andelen af produktinnovation der er udviklet i samarbejde med andre parter uden for virksomheden være steget. En anden mulighed er at det er de andre innovation former der bliver udviklet i samarbejde med andre parter f.eks. markedsføringsinnovation eller procesinnovation.
Udgifter til Forskning og udvikling (FoU)
Tallene fra Danmarks Statistik viser at virksomhedernes udgifter til FoU er steget 0,2 mia. fra 2009 til 2010. En meget lille stegning, der dog skal sættes i forhold til den økonomiske krise. Derved kan der argumenteres for at denne lille stegning er positiv og at virksomhederne fastholder udgifterne til FoU, hvilket på sigt skal sikre de danske virksomheders konkurrenceevne. I alt var virksomhedernes samlede udgifter til FoU på 46 mia. i 2010.
Tallene viser at hvis vi sammenligner udgifterne fra 2008 med 2010, så er de faktisk steget med hele 2,7 mia. hvilket svare til 8 procentpoint. Så midt i en krisetid investere de danske virksomheder forsat i FoU.
Vis tallene bliver brudt ned på brancheniveau, så er det industrien med 18,4 mia den branche, som bruger mest på FoU efterfulgt af Erhvervsservice og Information og kommunikation. Dette viser at debatten om, hvorvidt outsourcing af produktions- og industri virksomheder, samt arbejdspladser har betydning for Danmarks fremtidige konkurrenceevne.er yderst relevant.
Kilder:
Danmarks Statistik, Innovation i erhvervslivet 2010. Kan findes her
Danmarks Statistik, Forskning og udvikling i erhvervslivet 2010. Kan findes her
I regeringens firs sider lange regeringsgrundlag bliver innovation nævnt 30 gange. Blandt andet i forbindelse med at forbedre Danmarks innovationskapacitet således at Danmark kan konkurrer på innovation. I regeringsgrundlaget bliver det beskrevet, hvilke områder der primært skal satses på:
“Fremtidens arbejdspladser skabes især inden for vækstområder som energi, miljø og velfærd.”
Med hvad gemmer der sig bag ordet: innovationskapacitet? I regeringsgrundlaget bliver det forsøgt forklaret som:
En høj innovationskapacitet handler om, at virksomhederne får de bedste rammer til at udnytte fremtidens kilder til innovation. Det kræver, at uddannelsessystemet forstår og
reagerer på kravene til fremtidens arbejdskraft. At universiteter og andre videninstitutioner åbner sig og deltager i fremtidens globale innovationsnetværk.
Når Danmarks innovationskapacitet i så høj grad skal drives af samarbejdet mellem erhvervsliv og uddannelsesinstitutioner, som universiteter og handelshøjskoler bliver det virkeligt spændende at se, hvad den forestående strategi vil indeholde. Nogle vil måske mene at det er risikabelt at stole på at denne store og vigtige opgave kan løftets i samarbejdet mellem to vidt forskellige verdner, som har vidt forskellige målsætninger.
Den tidligere regering prøvede også at skabe en langt stærkere forbindelse mellem erhvervsliv og universiteter, dog uden større succes. Det resulterede mest i øget administration og politisk styring, men ikke i større resultater fra samarbejdet mellem universiteter og erhvervsliv.
Det bliver interessant at se om denne regering vil have større succes end den tidligere, med at højne samarbejdet og forhåbentlig den deraf følgende innovationskapacitet.
Læs også Camilla Rygaard- Hjalsted’s blogindlæg hos Mandag Morgen.dk om den nationale strategi her. Camilla er direktør for Innovation Center Danmark i Silicon Valley.
Kilder: “Et Danmarks som står sammen”, Regeringsgrundlag, 2011
Blueseed er et projekt, som ombygger en gammel færge til en flydende iværksætter incubator, med plads til 1000 iværksættere. De 1000 iværksættere kan derved leve og arbejde om bord på færgen, som vil være designet til at understøtte samarbejde og kreativitet. Planen er at Blueseed færgen skal ligge ca. 22 km ud for Californiens kyst og flere gange dagligt sejle ind til land således at iværksætterne kan afholde møde i Silicon Valley. Derudover vil de 1000 iværksættere være tæt på det yderst aktive venture capital miljø, som findes i Silicon Valley.
Animeret billede fra blueseed.co