| ...Someone has said that each of us, like frogs, has his
little well of ideas and values. Often we hide within that well
believing that our well is the only world. Until we get a visitor
from another well and hear of other ideas, we are unable to
fully appreciate the bigger world outside.
I agree that there there can be different stages in the innovation
process.Idea generation, feasibility, product development,
commercialization etc.However,having different stages does
not mean we can only use sequential processing. It is also
possible to do parallel processing. The ideal is like SUN's
motto: "The network is the innovator." I envision this as
a platform where the different stages interact without the
constraint of a specific sequence.
What does this mean in practical terms? Take Edison' vote
counting machine for example. If Edison had a knowledge platform
where he could openly share that idea at the idea stage (without
revealing what may be patentable) and if there are on that
same platform most of the people who are likely to use the
machine (after it is developed), and if they indicate they
are unlikely to use that kind of machine in the next ten years,
Edison will most likely not want to spend valuable time developing
it. This time consideration must be weighed against the nature
of the kind of innovation being embarked upon. (eg an incremental
innovation has a short life span. A revolutionary one has
a long life span.)
Another possibility is that someone on that platform might
indicate that he is interested only if the vote counting machine
is tamper proof and cost less than existing methods, then
Edison may have to incorporate these considerations into his
development process.
So this market's feedback (not just feedback from other innovators)
becomes an extremely valuable guide for the innovator. And
it need not be until after the product is developed but right
at the idea stage! It is in fact a valuable time-saver!
Some innovators think that if they could come out with a
better mousetrap,they don't need to care about the world.
The world will always beat a path to his door.They believe
they can create the customer's with a better technology. So
they lock themselves up to work on that trap. Unfortunately,
while thus isolated, if the world acquires an interest in
keeping cats, what use will the mousetrap be when it is ready?
This is the danger with such an approach, but by this, I
do not mean it is always bad. Without this approach we would
not have the paradigm changing innovations like the PC, telephone,
light bulb, airplane, banking, insurance etc.
There is however another approach, that of 'erving the customer's
which is more frequently practised. It is to identify or anticipate
the needs before embarking on innovation. This guides the
innovator to work on projects with more immediate applications
and a better chance for business success. However, this approach
has the danger that customers may lead the innovator down
the wrong path.
So should the innovator seek to create a customer'or erve
the customer's What I am saying is that the innovator should
ask himself why he is innovating. Serve himself and his ego
( I create my customer!) or serve others ( I serve my customer!).
I suspect most innovators prefer the first because they think
they are more noble than others and beyond commercial and
marketplace considerations! However I don' think it need be
an either this or that situation, instead an integrated approach
is far better.My philosophy is that the true innovator is
one who seeks to serve and in that serving finds his leadership.(what
is also called servant leadership) His attitude is to serve
the customer (user) and in the process creates a better one.
I think Snowline can benefit by having an open space where
ideas on new products is freely brainstormed, not by innovators
only, but more importantly, by potential users (customers)
as well. When we seek, and are truly open to user inputs,
to find how our innovation can serve users, we will find that
leadership needed in innovation.
|
