InnovationCreation

Problem-solving... This is something we all do every day. Some problems are not earth shattering ("when will I buy groceries?") and others have impacts that can change the way you live ("I lost my job and need to find a new one"). But the act of problem-solving itself is not (usually) something we learn directly as a skill. Yes, we do learn to solve problems, but most of us tend to "discover" problem-solving in the course of solving real problems. This means much of problem-solving learning is ad hoc and we miss out on the discovery of tools that can help us through the problem-solving thinking processes.


Problem-solving 101, by Ken Watanabe, a former McKinsey & Company consultant, is a short book that goes a long way toward helping everyone learn a few basic problem-solving tools and techniques. Ken shares several stories in which problem-solving tools and techniques are introduced. One example problem: the Mushroom Lovers rock band wants to drive up attendance at their shows. Ken lays out how the band seeks to identify the root cause of the low attendance and develop a series of hypothesis and solutions. While sharing the story of the band, Ken introduces techniques and tools like logic trees, action prioritization matrices, and problem-solving design plans.


The the book can be read in about an hour or two. When you are finished, you will have several methods that you can immediately use in any situation. The stories Ken shares are entertaining and you can relate to main characters' real problems. The book's graphic design enhances the stories and makes comprehending the concepts easy.


One final note: This is the type of book you will re-read and be reminded of some of the practices and skills needed to solve problems. I will have this book on my desk next to books I regularly re-read: The Mythical Man Month, Orbiting the Giant Hair Ball, and The Pursuit of Wow!

Labels: book, cool, creativity, fun, innovation, innovation tool

What is this? Is is a tennis ball at the end of a wooden broom handle that is used to quickly buff out scuffs on the floor of the Indianapolis, Indiana airport. The lady working the floors says this things works very well to remove floor scuffs and that all the cleaning staff have one of these. This is truly the implementation of "necessity is the mother of invention".

This week in the Financial Times there was an interview with Sir. James Black on "An acute talent for innovation". Sir. Black made an interesting statement with respect to pharmaceutical companies; “It’s a kind of obscenity. Very few of the drugs classified as blockbusters retrospectively were designed in that way. The people who know about markets can’t even predict what next year will do.”

Also of interest were his comments about small teams (25 people or less), that creativity is "not a method that can be learnt and taught", and there is no shortage of scientific talent, he says. “But [I am] much less optimistic about the managerial vision [of the pharmaceutical industry] to catalyse these talents to deliver the results we all want.”

The pending merger of Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical group, of Wyeth, highlights the focus of the need for "blockbusters", in the vein that a blockbuster is predictable. And yet the real energy in merging Pfizer and Wyeth will be spent on wringing out costs, making the two groups efficient, and corporate politics. One wonders if the real innovation of the Pfizer and Wyeth mereger will create is not within that combined company but outside, by those that can bring together those people "released" due to the merger, into small groups, and flying low under the radar.

My favorite line from the interview is "Anonymous peer review is the enemy of scientific creativity"... When something that is truly unique and market breaking, can you really have a peer review that is meaningful? Imagine the iPhone being reviewed by Motorola or Nokia before it was released. Peer review is great for that research or product improvement that is well known and incremental movement is being done. But in disruptive work there are few peers (hence the disruption).

“Peer reviewers go for orthodoxy...Many of the great 19th-century discoveries were made by men who had independent wealth – Charles Darwin is the prototype. They trusted themselves.” said Sir. Black

Labels: business, creativity, culture, deep thought, innovation, invention, pharmaceutical, trends

Just so you don't think I was a bit off on writing something about crumbs, I found these bits of crumb related items:

• From Patent 7,375,141, Soluble carob, The depolymerization may be carried out in a reactor provided with a mixing system suitable for handling fine powder, that is to say powder with a particle size of around 20 to 200 .mu.m, so as to prevent the formation of crumbs. As nonlimiting examples, mention may be made of LODIGE-type reactors, and ribbon mixers.



• Patent 7,353,952, Insulated compartmented lunch bag, Additionally, any crumbs or stains from eating are contained on the interior side or surfaces of the major compartment 120. Thereafter, major compartment 120 may be closed to hide the said crumbs or stains therein and out of sight.
  

and two I thought were interesting:

• Space Station Christmas, She looked at the swarm of crumbs and saw why NASA packaged crumbly foods in bite-sized morsels -- or avoided them altogether.



• Astronauts wrap up space station work, Reisman, meanwhile, can’t wait to get back to his wife, Simone Francis, and, to a lesser degree, their cat Fuzzy. He’s also looking forward to “a good slice of pizza” and some bread, banned from the space station because of crumbs. He’s had to settle for tortillas in orbit.
  

And if you really want to learn more, NASA Facts: Space Food, has some info on crumbs.

Thanks to Kim Williams, Amy Stark, and Lorraine Ball for their additions to the crumb list.

Ok, brainstorming, the kids way...

I spent last week at Camp Invention at Pike Township's Fishback Elementary School. This is a program by the National Inventors Hall of Fame Foundation, run all over the country, to provide kids age 7 to 12 with hands-on activities, brainstorming, experimentation, and unbelievable action. My involvement was to help the kids during the invention time.

All the kids (and parents) were told to bring a "take apart" item, from which they would, over the course of the week, build an invention. The younger kids (ages 7 to 10) were to think about some job or activity that really bugged them and come up with an invention to do the job or make the activity fun. The invention did not have to actually work, they just had to build a concept.

The older kids had to build a Rube Goldberg device, in a team setting, that would break a water ballon on a target, using at least four steps, two simple machines, a part from each of the team member's take apart item, and once the machine was started its process no additional human assistance could be given.

Some interesting observations about the kids:

• Kids will try anything. One boy insisted on using white glue to hold together material (LOTS of glue:) even though nothing was sticking (the items were too heavy for the glue. So he used more glue! One team of older kids found some foam tubing to make a marble launching system as part of their balloon breaking system, even though the foam tubing was not originally part of the supply kit.



• Older kids start to get constrained by implied teacher direction but younger kids don't let directions get in the way. Some of the direction by teachers and coaches seemed to bind the teams in a design direction they may or may not have realized was needed. I found my self imposing my view of design on the kids works by the way I responded to how a kid would build something.



• Scope creep occurs even in kids projects! The older kids rules received a few implied rules: the balloon had to go through the air (fly) and the target could be horizontal or vertical. These new implied rules came out during a discussion on what is to happen. When one kid asked about if the balloon has to fly through the air, a teacher said "yes" even though it was not stated on the rules.

It was a fun week and the kids learned some things. Hopefully they will get to practice their abilities to make things as school starts up in the next few weeks.

Pics and video of inventions.

Labels: creativity, deep thought, innovation, innovation tool, invention, thinking

When I hear the term "new media" I think of cool and interesting, possibly fun and something I want. Interestingly, the term new media is about media that is new today. In the mid 1990's there was a magazine called "NewMedia" which covered all the things happening on the web. At that time, the new media of the day was what ever was on the web. Any web site could claim to be new media. The ability to put up information on a network that allowed anyone in the world to see it was way different than the current media of the time; print, radio, TV.

Think about how you were informed of events in the agriculture industry in the late 1980's or early 1990's: newspapers, magazine, radio, TV. National Association of Farm Broadcasting, Farm Journal, or Feedstuffs anyone? These networks of media brought to you via snail mail or the airwaves info you needed to manage your agribusiness. Piles of papers and audio reports on the hour required you to pick and choose, pull info together, and make sense of it all manually.

As technology advanced, so did the ability of ag information to get to you in a streamlined fashion. Companies like DTN tapped into early electronic networks to bring all the information you needed straight to your computer (everyone remember those Apple II's?). While this still required some personal effort to integrate the information, electronic services started to remove the barrier to information access and understanding. This became the "new media" of the time. The same types of information yet presented and discovered in a whole different manner.

Today the new media has evolved to include finding and delivery of audio and video. While audio and video on the internet has been around since the mid 1990's, the process by which this type of media reached you has changed. No longer do you need to concern yourself with figuring out what to do with the files and how to listen. Service like DirectTV, Tivo and iTunes make obtaining shows like SwineCast or AgToday simple.

New media has also expanded on how information is presented. A great example is weather information: weather reports used to be static; look on the back page of the paper and see the 5 day forecast. Or, tune into a Brownfield Network radio station to get the recent weather report. Now weather reports come in all sorts of flavors, from old school media (the 5 day forecast in the Indianapolis Star still is handy), to the Weather Underground, the Weather Channel, and the US government's Aviation Weather Center. Each of these are pulling from a standard set of data sources and adding new methods for interpreting, understanding, and using weather information.

There are even services that supply, for a fee, weather information to speciality industries in a form that is delivered faster, provides usable analytics, and expert option on actions to take. Planalytics and Weather Services International are two such weather information service companies, offering to the ag industry tools to help make decisions. These methods of discovery, presentation, and understanding are the "new media" today.

Labels: cool, creativity, ideas, information, innovation, new media, software

Here are some links of coolness I found in an older folder. Amazingly the links are still good and relevant!

First is Electric Sheep (sounds like a Wallace and Gromit invention) software that is used to produce artwork. Electric Sheep is "a cyborg mind composed of 60,000 computers and people mediated by a genetic algorithm".

Second is Bathsheba Sculpture, who makes really impossible sculptures because she can! Impossible in that with out software and high tech manufacturing techniques (3D printing) these sculptures would not be possible.

Third is Rhinoceros, a modeling and design software tool that can be used to make all sorts of things, from buildings to techo art.

These three links are tied together (implicitly) by a proposal titled "Master of Fine Arts in Software" by Richard P. Gabriel, noted computer scientist and lisp expert (he created the Gabriel Benchmarks to compare lisp systems). This proposal is about "... the traditions of Computer Science and Software Engineering have tried to turn all aspects of software creation into a pure engineering discipline when they clearly are not. The MFA in Software would begin to repair this error."

The Rhinoceros, Bathsheba Sculpture, and Electric Sheep links above are sample of what one might learn and accomplish through the study of fine arts in software.

Labels: art, creativity, software

Every once in a while I have these thoughts that are entertaining and interesting.

One of those times occurred this last weekend, when my son was playing with TamTamJam on his OLPC. I got to thinking "why does the ice cream truck play the same same same annoying music as they drive around?" Why couldn't the music be composed by the neighborhood or be pulled from the creative commons world? Let it be entertaining and impressionable! Vote for the music as the truck stops to sell ice cream. This is a great target for an assumption challenge.

The other thought was from an email I was sending to Chris Brogan. I started the note " I hope you are recovering from recent travels." and got think about the word 'recover'. Do you ever 'recover'... How about 'recharge', kind of like an iRobot Roomba, where we seek out our home to plug back into the energy of home, family, comfort food, and the stuff you love to do.

Labels: creativity, design, invention

I am working on recommendations for a client on innovation leadership models. I have been thinking about this for a couple weeks and have developed the following guides:

• The model has to be dirt simple to understand.
• The model is for people and about people so the model actions must take that into account.
• Like all models, it will not be perfect. The more resolution (detail) the model must have the harder it will be to change and adapt.
• The model should have no more than seven items. Why? Seven is a magic number in human cognition. The ability to recall and process information seems to be bound by a limit of 7 (+- 2).

With those parameters in mind here is my draft leadership model (7 (+1)):

1. Be positive, smile, and have fun. Smile, its infectious. See Social Experiment.
2. Build and share ideas. Get ideas out to people, have conversations about them, refine and adjust. Fail faster. Try and learn, try and learn, try and learn. If you are going to be innovative, you are going to fail. Then share and celebrate those failures. Repeat.
   
3. Become more visible. Get on the ground with the people doing the work and developing ideas.
4. Recognize and reward peoples' actions and behavior.
5. Learn about and practice innovation.
6. Look. Listen. Learn. Observe your customers (Don't survey them. Don't watch your competitors. Don't focus group them.). Tap your employees (People that work with you have ideas and ability to act; engage them). Ask questions.
   
7. Be Firm, Fair, and Consistent (used to be "Be steady, consistent, and methodical"). There is no magic bullet, no quick fix, no magic moment so don't create a 'crisis', an 'event', or a 'program'.

While this is at 7 items, some of the items have multiple concepts within them. Can this model be simple (simple=short, easy to consume, not complex) yet not be formulaic? Just doing these seven things, by themselves, will not make innovation happen. There are some complex people stuff in several items.

Here are some research papers and white papers that provide (deeper) thoughts on leadership and innovation.

• The Ten Faces of Innovation, by Tom Kelley.
  
• The Power of Ordinary Practices, chat with Teresa M. Amabile
  
• The Way of the Innovation Leader, from New and Improved
• Building Innovative Teams, from New and Improved
• Good to Great article in Fast Company, by Jim Collins
• Thoughts from Susan Lucia Annunzio, author of Contagious Success
• The Business of Innovation, CNBC series.
• Learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some. From All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten, by Robert Fulghum.
• Five different types of thinking to jolt creativity, by Chris Penn, co-founder of PodCamp.
  

Labels: create, creativity, innovation, leadership, manage, model

What do you think about challenging assumptions as a way to get your brain to turn left and create new alternatives to products and services? Here is the challenge:

What assumptions do you have about your company, or your company's products and services? OK, don't want to poke at your stuff? Think about other people's products and services!

Here is a quick assist to jump the thinking: Think about all the things you assume about gas cans, those red (now there is an assumption!) things you use to fill up your mower, and in emergencies, your car. Write down as many assumptions as you can about those gas cans ... Then (only after your list is done) take a look at this Kevin Kelly Cool Tools web page.

Now think about your products/services OR other people's products / services.

• Pick one (your company, or one of your company's products or services) and write down as many assumptions as you can about it.
• Look at your list and think about the results, actions, or changes that could be taken if one of those assumptions were removed.

I am interested in what you discover while thinking about this. Post your chosen product/service and the assumptions you listed as a comment.

Labels: assumption, brain, creativity, innovation tool, thinking