Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Innovations: Complexions, Complications or Complexes…and the wisdom to know the Difference

Much of the success of any innovation can be attributed to the way in which it is introduced.

A good introduction is based on the introducer's understanding of his or her “audience.”  Experienced innovators know that their success is contingent upon their knowledge of the surrounding ecology or system in which the innovation will be used and into which it will be introduced.

Kimberly-Clark Company learned this lesson the hard way many years ago with Avert®. Ranked as one of the most innovative new products the year it was in test market by the NPD Group, Avert was a tissue-based product that could "prevent the spread of colds" by killing Herpes-2 virus in five seconds with a patented ascorbic acid treatment. Avert was quite naturally marketed as a facial tissue, that being with what Kimberly-Clark, the makers of Kleenex® tissues, was most familiar. After all, Avert looked like a facial tissue, felt like a facial tissue, and was packaged like a facial tissue. Therefore it must be a facial tissue.

In hindsight, it quickly became apparent that although Avert® had the appearance of a facial tissue, its primary benefit suggested that it belonged not in the paper products aisle, but in the cold remedy aisle. As a cold remedy, it may have lasted longer in the market.

The point is that every innovation requires some kind of introduction given its “newness.”   Every innovation needs to be integrated and assimilated into the existing system. Innovators who underestimate the introduction challenge are often left wondering why the world did not beat a path to the door of their elegant new solution. 

Not only must innovators be creative in conceiving and developing the innovation, they also have to anticipate the changes that will need to occur in the system into which the innovation will be introduced and integrated. Hence, a solid understanding of the system, its causes and effect, is absolutely necessary. Here is where wisdom and discernment, built upon as much analysis as possible, is essential.

Will your innovation affect only the surface or skin of the system?  Or will it need to go deeper into the system into which it is introduced? And if it goes deeper, will it be perceived as a complication or a fitting relief in modifying a burdensome complex that is already there?

Many innovations don't go much below the surface. Call them dermatological innovations. Their beauty is only skin-deep. These innovations may be designed for the sake of differentiation alone. Tier 1 and 2 auto suppliers have struggled for years with innovations for the sake of differentiation alone, living as they do under the tyranny of the “Big Three.” These innovations often end up not very sustainable because they are about the complexion of the systems into which they are introduced more than they affect the structure. Innovations like these are often easy come-easy go and end up churning a lot of the innovator's resources. A classic example of this innovation churn was the so-called cookie wars. So many new cookies forms were introduced, but few were supported in any sustainable manner. Dermatological innovations like this leave us with novelty that is only skin-deep.

Unlike complexion-level innovations (too much design and too little substance), some innovations suffer from the opposite: complication. These are the innovations that might succeed with the enthusiasts who have the time, passion and patience to deal with poor product design and the inability of the innovator to make the tough choices for the user.  Many consumer electronics innovations make their entrance as complications more than innovations as and when they sport more features than can be readily used and understood by end-users. My new smart phone is a case in point: full of capabilities only a small percentage of which I am likely to use.

The third type of innovation—those that sell themselves and approximate a truly elegant solution—offer a solution to a structural problem and, as such, take hold in a sustainable way by altering the system into which they are introduced. The proverbial iPod example is just such a case in point. Elegant design with known MP3 technology coupled with a well-executed iTunes web service is only part of the story. What Apple and Steve Jobs (a master introducer) also did was restructure the way we buy music.  Through iPod/iTunes, consumers were freed from the structural tyranny of having to buy music in albums. Now we could buy singles again, only this time we could get them delivered digitally. The success of Apple and Jobs with the iPod/iTunes was based on a solid understanding of the system into which the iPod/iTunes was introduced.

Where do we get wisdom to tell the difference between these different types of innovations?

Recently we were reminded of the difference between the corporate “pasture, free range, and wilderness.”* The reminder came in the form of an article by Joseph Meeker, Ph.D., brought to our attention by Stuart Brown. Meeker's article is titled Wisdom and Wilderness and was published, interestingly enough, in Landscape Magazine. 

While Meeker's comments have to do with the wisdom and wilderness in the natural world, what he has to say carries relevance for innovators in differentiating the existing markets (corporate pastures), from embryonic new markets (free range), and from the innovation wilderness.

Meeker writes, “Our minds and souls have roots in the untamed processes of nature. Preserving wilderness is human self-preservation. What better image of old age could we hope for than the prospect of wisdom contemplating wilderness? Few treasures are more valuable than these two forms of complex maturity. The rest of us need to study and learn from both in an effort to enrich our lives and our world. In the end, wilderness is nature's way of being wise, and wisdom is the mind's way of being natural.”

We can get more from fewer innovations when we better understand how the innovation fits (or not) in the users eco-system into which we envision it being introduced. This presumes at least some understanding and empathy for the structure of the system into which the innovation will be introduced and how it will or will not affect that system.

Wisdom comes from an awareness not just of one boundary (the border between the corporate pasture and the free range); it also requires an ability to tell the difference between what is wild and what is in that range of proximity that we call free range.


*The Maverick Way: Profiting from the Power of the Corporate Misfit (Cheverton, et. al. 2000).



This article was originally published in Innovating Perspectives in March 2007. For this and other back issues of our newsletter, please visit our website at innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 460-1313.

No comments:

Post a Comment