Monday, September 17, 2012

Seven Sources (well, really four)


Peter Drucker defines the seven sources of innovation as:

  1. THE UNEXPECTED
  2. INCONGRUITIES
  3. PROCESS NEEDS
  4. INDUSTRY AND MARKET STRUCTURE
  5. DEMOGRAPHICS
  6. CHANGES IN PERCEPTION
  7. NEW KNOWLEDGE

The idea here is that each or any of these sources of cognitive dissonance can server as a catalyst for an innovation. I think before we focus too much on the sources themselves it's worth nothing that there are two kinds of innovations:evolutionary and revolutionary: I want to focus mostly on the latter, as the former to me, while an important part of the innovation economy, tends to be more technical and syntactic by nature, and thus does not lend itself well to an analysis of the art of innovation.

Within the context of Revolutionary innovation, one could make the argument that all seven sources can be in play, but in my mind realistically, revolutionary innovations most often are associated with sources 1, 2, 6, and 7. Let's examine how.

The Unexpected: Broken Buildings: 

When Drucker talks about the unexpected, what he really means could probably better be described as 'The Accidental.' This is not to discount the role serendipity plays in the innovation process; just to say we should call a spade a spade.

To me, the unexpected is in the eye of the consumer, not the manufacturer. Nutrasweet and Post-It Notes may not have been what the engineers who created them set out to create, but that does not by nature make them unexpected. The Unexpected is all about satisfying a need for a consumer in a way they -you guessed it- weren't expecting. The easy example to give here would be the namesake of this blog; chunky spaghetti sauce. But seeing as how I've riffed about that already, let's go for revolutionary and not just evolutionary.

(The iPod is another example, but I believe using Apple as an example is a copout, because everyone in business schools everywhere is using Apple as an example. We can do better.)

Let's try for something more interesting: Broken Buildings (true story: that was the runner-up for the name for this blog.)

Frank Gehry is an Pritzker Prize-winning architect who broke buildings. How does an architect- a vocation whose very nature is to design and construct buildings- break buildings? This Is How. By changing what it meant to build a building, and making people feel things they were not expecting to feel, Gehry broke our previously held conceptions of what a building was, what a building could, or should, be. Critics panned Gehry's work when it was first making waves... now his structures are badges of honor, and command some of the highest commissions in the architecture world.

Incongruities: a tale of Frogs and Flies:

Ever try to swat a fly with anything smaller than a flyswatter? It's unbelievably hard. A flies eyes enable it to see just about 360 degrees, meaning there's no way you can sneak up on it.

Why is it, then, than a frog- an amphibian whose brain is barely a drop in the bucket when compared to a human brain- can snatch a moving fly out of the air with its tongue? 

Because a frogs eyesight is optimized for only seeing things that are moving; the faster something is moving, the more clearly a frog can see it... if you ever want to catch a frog, wait to make your move until your hands are just on top of the thing- the slower you move, the more invisible you are to the frog.

So what does this have to do with innovation? 

We are so inundated with information and data over the course of our day that, much like the frog, if something is not moving (i.e. different), we ignore it. 

Only firms and products that can cut through the noise and create a stark incongruity have a shot at egging out a slice of the market.

Changes in Perception: You Are What You Eat: 

Are eggs good or bad? How about butter? Red Meat? How about cigarettes? Running? Contraception?

Each of these things has gone from bad, to good and back, in some cases multiple times. In some cases, we don't know. Other, it depends on what you believe. Here's a witticism I just thought up: Perception Predates Product. People's belief systems and conclusions about what they like or don't like exist long before you got there. So saying you've got a better mousetrap means bunk to me if mousetraps aren't broken for me.

New Knowledge:  

Three times a year, The Economist publishes a series of articles on emerging technology called Technology Quarterly. To give you an idea of the kind of stuff TQ covers, this most recent iteration had stories on self-driving cars, energy weapons (literally, lightsabers), and a new kind of toilet that can cut down on occurrences of diarrhea, cholera, dysentery, and other third world diseases which kill hundreds of thousands in underdeveloped countries.

Not all of these ideas will make it to market, and more still may never see the light of day- but a couple of them will get through, and its on those leaps that the entrepreneur must focus their energy.

1 comment:

  1. I am not so sure that perception predates product. Advertising often introduces the product in such a way as to shape how it should be perceived. Despite having a preconceived notion, based on your own belief system, it is not uncommon to be persuaded to see it in a different light. Only after experiencing the product or service can you draw a more accurate conclusion. Unfortunately this may only strengthen the deception, as you have been influenced by the product or by acceptance of the product by those around you, who may not have the same values as you do. Such an example would be the smoking of cigarettes.

    ReplyDelete