innovation.net

Reinventing 'commodity' categories -- even the bowling ball

I recently was introduced to some of the underlying innovations and technologies driving advances in the bowling industry.  Ebonite based in a small town in KY here in the US is continuing to apply R&D in new ways.  Encouraging, though they don't label it as such, they are also leaders in 'open innovation' through their history and experience in bringing emerging technologies from other industries and university settings into their category.  I can't share the specifics of some of their new ideas, but here's a link to a recent television show highlighting some of their developments. 

Whenever I hear a client or industry 'expert' labeling a product as 'commoditized' I wince.  That's what they used to say about the home vacuum category until Richard Dyson came along and has launched a continuous series of innovations in that very mature and competitive market.

I believe that any business and any product can be innovated.  I wrote some time back about Dan Touhey and Spalding.  Through a series of disruptive ideas, several of which were developed via 'open innovation' partnerships, Spalding grew their business by 33% in one year!

And in particular, I'm intrigued by the nuances (from basketball and bowling, to swim suits)  of how technology is helping to drive performance and break records in sports equipment.  Like I said, you can reinvent ANY category.

Cross-pollination: Matching existing technologies with new unmet needs

I want to talk about what I call cross-pollination of existing technology. You take two or more applications that on their own are great and useful and then, to create a whole new more powerful widget, you bring them together to meet a new or previously unmet need.

Take halo, the first germ-killing vacuum. This is a high-end vacuum that kills germs not with potentially harmful chemicals, which most of us would rather not have in our homes and offices, but with UV-C technology. (UV-C is a germ-killing light on the UV spectrum.) And when they say germ-killing they mean it, from dust mites to viruses to bacteria to mold. I don’t think any of us wants to be breathing any of that in (though we all are, all the time).

The makers are quick to add there is no potential for damage to the skin or eyes, and, in a broad sense, the halo vacuum can be considered a green product, which is something in very high demand these days.

I'm not out to give a giant plug for this product (I have no connection whatsoever to the product or its manufacturers) but a plug for matching real needs with existing technologies. No re-inventing of the wheel (maybe just of the vacuum!) necessary here. It’s about thinking beyond, beyond what you see already to what you know might and very well could be. 

Future Hype

In Bob Seidensticker's new book, Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change, the author takes a rather contrarian view of our love affair with new technologies.   Seidensticker discusses the "birthday-present syndrome" in which "we don't soberly weigh today's developments against the technologies we already have... Too often we mistake a new technology for an important one."  (via April 2006 Conference Board "Across the Board" magazine).

It reminds us all that technologies are enablers, not ends to themselves.  The successful ones are those that solve real unmet needs (whether spoken or unspoken) in new and useful ways.

Consumer Driven or Technology Driven? Chicken or Egg?

No one today would argue the importance of a consumer/customer focus in driving innovation. Yet in today's 'open innovation' environment, where companies are searching externally for technologies and solutions, the age-old question of consumer driven vs. technology driven takes on new importance. I still often get asked about whether companies should start with identifying needs and then search for technologies that address those needs.... or identify compelling intellectual property and then match them with unmet consumer needs which can be solved?

My answer? Yes.

Huh?

What I mean by this non-answer is that the question implies a linear approach of first "A" then "B". Innovation, especially breakthrough innovation is an iterative process. The process you use for incremental product and service improvements will seldom work for real breakthroughs. Your company may do all of the right consumer interviews and observational research to identify compelling unmet consumer needs. Yet in spite of this excellent work, you may not be able to develop or source a compelling solution, or perhaps the competitive environment won't provide the opportunity to introduce the innovation into the market... the time just may not yet be right.

Rather, companies should be continually scanning for technologies, consumer/market trends and marketplace opportunities. To me, it's all about finding and exploiting the intersections between unmet needs, enabling solutions (e.g. technology) and marketplace opportunities.

It's at these intersections that compelling and winning innovation lies. And to me it's not about where you start, it's about ensuring that you're truly finding these intersections.

All that said, I'm still a believer in creating a deep understanding of consumers and their needs in searching for strategic innovation opportunities. Think of it as 'creative fuel' for your innovation efforts. With this fuel, you'll see potential technologies and solutions through a more clear lens and increase your chances of creating really big ideas. Just don't expect your technology scanning to solve the problem you've set out to solve. As Louis Pasteur once said, "Chance favors the prepared mind". And I'd add... an 'open' mind.