
In previous articles I've described the Innovation Process of gurus like Clay Christensen and Peter Drucker (and my own), and a process for tapping the Wisdom of Crowds.
Since then, I've talked to several business leaders about these
processes, and they suggested I integrate them together to create a
Creative Problem-Solving Process. The diagram above is the first draft
of this CPS process.
It appears there may be as many as 12 steps in the process involved in
solving problems or making critical decisions, whether in a business
context or a broader social context. In most cases, many of these steps
are side-stepped or short-circuited, often because the problem-solvers
or decision-makers think they already have the information or
perspective that doing them would provide. Perhaps this is why so many
unimaginative solutions are developed and so many bad decisions are
made?
The process of solving problems, when it's undertaken thoroughly, can
involve three different forms of interactivity (conversation,
collaboration and canvassing), in engaging the energies of three
different aggregations of people (individuals, teams, and 'crowds').
The following table summarizes the 12 steps, and the interactivity,
methods, deliverables and some facilitation tools for each:
Action
|
Interactivity
|
Methods
|
Deliverables
|
Some Tools
|
A Teach
|
Conversation
|
Training
|
Competencies
|
Creativity Techniques,
Collaboration Skills
|
B. Listen
|
Canvassing
|
Continuous Scan,
Intelligence-Gathering
|
Identified Needs,
Insights
|
Environmental Scanning,
Minto Fact-Based Research
|
C. Understand
|
Conversation |
Analysis
|
Root Causes
|
Root Cause Analysis,
Fishbone Diagrams
|
D. Organize
|
Collaboration
|
Coordination
|
Solution Team,
Improvisational Plan
|
'Getting Things Done',
PKM, Improv
|
E. Think Ahead
|
Conversation |
Iteration
|
Future State Visions
|
Thinking-Ahead Process,
Future-State Visioning |
F. Reach Out
|
Canvassing |
Engagement
|
Commitment, Attention,
Status Quo Dissatisfaction
|
'ChangeThis' Manifestos
|
G. Brainstorm
|
Conversation,
Collaboration
|
Creation,
Ideation
|
Solution Alternatives,
Innovation Culture
|
Accelerated Solutions
Environment
|
H. Survey
|
Canvassing |
Qualifying
|
Collective Wisdom,
Consensus
|
Wisdom of Crowds process
|
I. Design
|
Collaboration
|
Crafting
|
Prototypes
|
Rapid Prototyping,
Natural Design
|
J. Experiment
|
Collaboration |
Parallel Processing
|
Proof of Concept
|
True Collaboration Training
|
K. Challenge
|
Collaboration |
Questioning,
Critical Thinking
|
Solution Qualification,
Issues & Landmines
|
Seven Thinking Hats
|
L. Deploy
|
Canvassing |
Offering
|
Solutions
|
Project Management,
One-Step-at-a-Time
|
Applying the process to a business problem:
Nash Instruments makes digital thermometers and other medical
instruments for hospitals. They manufacture in Mississippi, taking
advantage of low labour costs, but foreign competitors manufacturing in
China have undercut them. The company is on the verge of bankruptcy,
and 300 employees are depending on Nash's ingenuity to reinvent their
company to save their jobs.
So we start by teaching the core Solution Team of Nash the process, and
creativity techniques so they can imagine a successful future for their
company, not limited to incremental improvements. Then, with the
Solution Team, we canvass customers and end-users of the company's
products and other similar instruments, and find out what untapped
needs they have. We also study trends in the market, and scan across
other industries, science, technologies, and nature, to surface new
developments that might be adapted or applied to Nash's products,
processes, platforms, technologies, supply chain or distribution
channels, core competencies, customer experience, brand, service or
community wrap-arounds, or business model. Perhaps we discover that
what customers are most unhappy with is the poor quality, ambiguity and
reliability of these instruments -- and that what customers want aren't
cheaper instruments, but
simpler, more durable, more accurate ones. That they are buying the
cheap ones made in China only because none of them differentiate
themselves in other ways.
The third step is to analyze the root causes of the company's current
predicament. We know from the previous step that price really isn't the
differentiating factor that's hurting the company's sales, but why
isn't the company, with its skilled, domestic workforce, able to
produce a better product? And are there other aspects to the
undifferentiated 'customer experience', such as service quality? Or a
distribution or marketing problem? Or lack of product diversity or
innovation? Suppose we discover that the root problems are that the
company has compromised on materials quality to try to reduce cost,
that it's slow to exploit new technologies, and that it has developed a
reputation for unresponsive service. Once we know this, we refine the
Solution Team, and develop the plan and timeline for solving the root
problems.and meeting the untapped customer needs.
Then we conduct Thinking-the-Customer-Ahead sessions, using an
iterative 'what-if' process to enable some of Nash's most
forward-thinking customers and potential customers to understand where
their businesses, and instrumentation needs, are headed, which in turn
allows Nash to craft a Future State Vision that satisfies those needs.
Maybe we discover that the future of medical instrumentation is
wireless, that displays are going to have to be flatter and sharper,
that measurements in several medical technologies will need to be two
orders of magnitude more precise, and that in some cases the tools will
become so sophisticated that the instrument manufacturer will have to
become part of the virtual medical team, on call 24/7 to assist in
interpretation of the results.
And then we reach out to the larger constituency, all current and
potential customers and end-users, articulating the promise that Nash
could deliver and fomenting dissatisfaction with the status quo,
creating a sense of urgency in the minds of customers and end-users,
articulating the unmet need, and also creating that sense of urgency in
Nash's own people.
Next we do the creative work of inventing or reinventing products,
processes, platforms, technologies, channels, brands, and even business
models, and growing the core competencies needed to deliver on them.
But we don't put all our eggs in one basket: We develop a suite of alternative solutions. And then we use the Wisdom of Crowds
process to present them to the 'crowd', as large a group of existing
and potential customers and users and employees as possible, and use
the crowd's collective intelligence to help us select the best of these
alternatives before taking
them to market. Nash's reputation is a problem -- trying to go upscale
with a new generation of sophisticated, precise instruments will be a
marketing nightmare. maybe a whole new division with a new name is
needed? And should the company try to overcome its employees'
near-total ignorance of how hospitals use its instruments, so they can
offer virtual interpretation, or leave this niche to others? And should
it overhaul its supply chain in favour of better-quality material
suppliers, or even bring production of these materials in-house and cut
out the middleman?
Now, with the confidence that we have the optimal solutions, we can
design working prototypes of these solutions, and we can
collaboratively run parallel experiments with different implementations
of these solutions, failing fast and inexpensively to winnow out the
implementations that don't work in practice. How would wireless
instruments avoid interference with, and from, other medical
technologies in the operating room and on the patient's night-table.
What different techniques can be used to increase read-out precision
without a commensurate increase in equipment cost? And when medical
instruments need to be made in two 'flavours', one for sophisticated
hospital use and the other for patients to self-diagnose and
self-monitor, how do the price points differ and how should
functionality and ease-of-use be traded off? Should Nash even be in
both markets?
And then the implementations that succeed must pass the final hurdle,
another collaborative process that encourages skeptical, critical
thinking people in the organization to challenge whether this solution
really is optimal, and unearth landmines and other problems the
developers may not have thought about. Maybe the designers didn't
consider that baby-boomer patients' eyes are weakening and the display
in a new consumer product just isn't large enough? Or that one of the
new suppliers of a critical material is in financial difficulty?
Once the solutions have passed this final test, they're ready for
launch. The launch of dramatically new products, processes and
technologies is a difficult process, and if not done properly and
quickly can make an enormously promising innovation into a production
or market failure. The launch needs careful project management, using a
rigorous, tightly-controlled, one-step-at-a-time process.
It's all common sense. The reason it is so rarely used is that few
organizations have the competencies to do more than two or three of the
12 steps effectively. I've worked on all 12 steps at one point or
another in my career, and they are not
easy to master, but when they're done well, they yield astonishing
results. The answer, I think, isn't just to bring in consultants to
facilitate the process and then breeze out again. Advisers need to
teach businesspeople how to do this for themselves, and then steward
them through the process a couple of times to ensure they follow it
properly. In a world where innovation will soon again be recognized as
the only sustainable competitive business advantage, learning this
process may the most important education for tomorrow's business
leaders.
And there's no reason to believe this same process couldn't be used to
effectively address broader social, economic and environmental problems
as well. I'll explore that in a future article.
|