I
haven't written much about innovation lately, but that's not because it
isn't important. It's mostly because, at levels of energy that have a
broad social or environmental impact, there simply isn't much of it
going on. Lots of R&D, lots of design aimed to make products sexier
(and sometimes more
user-friendly), and, depressingly, a ton of marketing aimed at making
consumers feel better about paying too much for foreign-made crap and
lousy service.
But among all this business-as-usual there are five trends that are promising, and which, if they continue, could actually help meet real human needs and make the world a better place:
1. Co-development with cohorts: The idea of co-development and peer production of products and services with customers, citizens and employees
is still relatively new, and gaining steam slowly. What's interesting
is its corollary: That co-develoment and peer production is probably
best done by cohort groups. In terms of the need/affinity matrix that means that once a group with a common need or affinity has co-developed one new product or service, it probably makes sense to tap their energies and talents to co-develop more,
instead of establishing new cohort groups around other needs or
affinities. Why? Because these cohorts are more likely to share values,
worldviews, experiences and needs that would make such co-development
easier, more enjoyable and more fruitful. What's more, it takes a while
for a group working on some open source or peer production project to
gel, to get to know each other, so once they've done that they're
further along the collaboration learning curve and hence more likely to
be effective, faster, in their next project. And as they age, their
needs are likely to co-evolve along similar lines, so they are likely
to endure as cohorts.
2. Government-supported user-centred entrepreneurship: Instead
of spending R&D moneys on self-serving large corporations,
oligopolies and academic institutions, we should be following the Danish model
of investing R&D in user co-development and peer production groups
who are driven by personal needs to produce something of value (often
to the point they will do so even if there is no funding whatever). It
only makes sense that the ROI on such an investment is likely to be
much greater than investments in big organizations whose main skill is
crafting clever funding proposals for governments. And the average
user-centred investment is likely to be much smaller, allowing many
more projects to be funded. The problem, of course, is the government
approval bureaucracy – it probably needs to be dismantled and replaced
by an agency that is measured by the number and diversity of
initiatives it sponsors rather than the amount of paper it produces.
Who knows, such an initiative could produce thousands of disruptive
innovations like this entrepreneurial one in the guitar market, and in the process break down oligopolies instead of propping them up.
3. Engaging the subconscious mind in innovation: The
innovation programs I've been involved in have mostly been tightly
managed and measured by 'objective' criteria, and discouraged the kind
of wild ideas that come out of holistic thinking (ever seen a chorus of
raised eyebrows shut up a brilliant, half-thought-out, totally
unorthodox idea before it can even be considered)? We are taught to
believe that only intellectually-reasoned, consciously thought-out
concepts are defensible, and to distrust our instincts, emotions and
senses if they 'tell' us to do something different from what simple
rational linear thought would dictate. Indigenous cultures know that
allowing our unconscious minds time to integrate instinctive, emotional
and sensory information (much of it subconscious) with conscious
thinking leads to better decisions. Even our unimaginative culture
acknowledges that 'sleeping on it' can help clarify and focus and bring
new ideas to bear on a problem. What we need are innovation programs
that teach and encourage such holistic thinking and the synthesis of
all four types of knowledge.
4. Giving customers and citizens an ethical alternative: As Karen Fraser argues in the HBR breakthroughs list
(the graphic above is from her article), the reason many of us continue
to buy from unethical vendors is that we don't have any ready
alternative. The oligopolies love this, since it causes the customer to
give up trying to live a socially and environmentally responsible life,
and instead become a mere consumer of what the oligopolies are pushing.
When a company like the Body Shop comes along to rock the boat, its
industry first heaps vitriol on the threat and then copies it, usually
dishonestly, using misleading ads and greenwashing to try to represent
itself as ethical when it really isn't, so that when the fraudsters are
finally exposed (BP, Shell, etc.) the public becomes even more cynical
and is less likely to believe any truly ethical alternative exists. What we need to do is understand how the real ethical alternatives, companies like flooring manufacturer Interface Carpets,
manage to become powerhouses in their industries, and then we need to
find ways to publicly sponsor promotions for such companies (they are,
after all, providing an important public service, even if they are
profit-oriented). [Full disclosure: I have some shares in Interface].
5. Letting us all be virtually beautiful:
As gasoline becomes more expensive, we are going to be spending more
and more of our time communicating virtually instead of face to face.
That's a shame in a way (communication is nearly always better face to
face) but new technologies are emerging that make virtual communication
less awkward, and less travel also has environmental benefits. But this article hints
at the possibility that we may be able to make ourselves 'virtually'
more beautiful as well. And what's the harm in that? If we're looking
at people on-camera, it's nicer to see people who are
attractive-looking. It can help our self-esteem to be seen as
attractive and complimented for it. It may even positively affect our
credibility and career success (lots of studies suggest beautiful
people are considered more honest, and get ahead further and faster
than their similarly-competent but less attractive peers). So if you
look more attractive to your customers, your boss, your staff, your
parents, your grandchildren, than you really are, is that dishonest?
Does it indicate some personality flaw to want to do so? Maybe. But we
all like attention and appreciation, and if technology can help us get
it, I think that's a plus. Of course, virtual dating services may have
some problems with it. But is it really all that different from makeup
and girdles?
Thanks to Innovation Weekly for all the links above.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
