Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been working on a small new product development challenge posted by one of the Open Innovation forums. It’s a really inspiring initiative; designing a 6,000 litre rain water storage system costing less than $100 that families across rural communities in a region of south west India can build and maintain.
Circumstances at the time meant I was tackling the work solo. So I found myself swinging between the practical world of structural analysis, high level design, detailing, cost engineering, etc, and then switching my mind into the creative world of cultural empathy, problem solving, invention etc.
As a result I was left questioning whether a cross-functional team with individual expertise in each of the key disciplines would be more likely to achieve an optimal result. But then it occurred; herding cats has its limitations and that significant insight or the special break-through are more likely to be achieved when only one or two people take up the challenge.
So if I’m looking for a safe and effective incremental development, the traditional project team probably offers more advantages (although it needs the discipline of the project management process to maintain cross-discipline coordination and team alignment). However if new or radical rethinking is needed then the individual designer or architect is essential to provide that break-through thinking and to direct the thought leadership.
And it looks like this observation is supported by the science. An innovation model researched by Roberto Verganti appears to validate this difference. Apparently based mostly on studies of Italian innovation success, it appears individuals with their supporting hierarchies are more successful at driving radical innovation, while flat teams with their project management coordination achieve better incremental improvements and adaptations.
For me, the really fascinating epiphany offered by this model is that radical innovation and break-through meaning can come in two flavours. The first is a Design Driven flavour where the radical innovation is based on inventing form, meaning and value. The second (possibly) more familiar flavour is Technology Push where the innovation is based on inventing function, purpose and utility. Occasionally it’s even possible for these two radical innovation drivers to align.
And the research appears to show this radical innovation is not achieved through user centred requirements analysis. Instead it is achieved by external interpreters (designers, architects and thought leaders) observing the environment from outside and seeking to find new meaning or capability that can then be proposed to the market.
So back to the self doubts inspired while working solo on my water storage challenge. It appears Open Innovation methods may offer an advantage when searching for break through solutions. Inviting participation from across the global community allows individuals to take part without imposing the constraints of a corporate cross-functional project team. While the result remains simply a proposal for evaluation, the open innovation approach appears to bring better opportunity for radical prototypes (just like a fashion parade or a motor show) where buyers and subject matter experts can experience the “what if”.
I’m interested in feedback and views to help achieve better product development.
