2 – distinguishing types of innovation
The purpose of this exercise is to learn to distinguish between
different types of innovation, and to learn to see innovation as the search for new opportunities to create value.
see page 25 of BDI
brand driven innovation where branding, innovation and design meet
21 Responses Subscribe to comments
Reply
contact me
my linked in profilecreative commons licence
cc
my flickr pics
Team EFCOM
Levels of innovation
Categorizing the concept of innovation is always subjective. The various innovations could be placed on different locations on the scale, depending on the arguments and the context sketched. As product designers, most of the innovation we had brought with us were incremental product innovations. The most interesting were the discussions on transformation; an innovation can only be called transformational if it changes the way people perceive the world. Therefore the penetration of the offering should be very deep and can only be evaluated afterwards. In other words transformation can’t be predicted.
A huge technological breakthrough does not have to mean a transformational change, because innovation is a process that happens behind the scenes and only if widely accepted by consumers can an innovation grow out to be a transformation. The penetration gives meaning to the innovation.
The level of innovation is not necessarily related to economic success; an incremental change can deliver heaps of money, while a radical innovation might flop. However, as innovation is relative, missing the trend can be a huge mistake. After the walkman transformation, Sony should have taken the lead in music carriers. As is true for Polaroid and digital cameras. Even though for these companies these innovations would have been incremental, they would have resulted in a transformational social effect.
Sep 26, 2011 @ 11:38 am
G3
Within the group there was a lot of discussion where certain products should be placed. A lot of cards were often combinations of both innovation in processes and products. By combining these new processes and products often a new business model is created.
To determine the 30 different product/service examples we discussed relevant brands that are encountered in an everyday context and selected the most diverse range. Also, we brainstormed products/services that are offered in a niche market or by a niche brands. The process of placing the cards on the table came with unexpected positive discussion. For instance when you are thinking of a hybrid car, you think the Toyota Prius. Which is in our opinion a proactive, radical innovation, this lead to a debate about the Audi Q5 Hybrid. This car is in our opinion much more an incremental innovation, due to external factors. Reflecting on the selection process, we can conclude that most products we chose to discuss were incremental product innovations.
Probably due to the same reason we had more internal driven innovations than external forced innovations. We believe this is due to or previous debates and selection process. Therefore, operating within a specific innovation scale it was difficult to evaluate a distinction between which products are radical and which are incremental innovations. During this discussion the CD-i product by Philips came up. Based on results and profit it is not a success, however, a lot the CD-i features were used by Philips in their next generation of products. Unlike its predecessor, these next generation products became successful products . The main conclusion of the group is that user-centered design is crucial to create innovative products that are also commercially successful.
Oct 04, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
Team Synergize&Co
Every group member collected 5 pictures of innovative products, services or businesses. We discussed the drivers behind the innovations and categorized the different types and levels of innovations. The categorization was based on the model of Bettina von Stamm, 2003.
Some of the innovations were easy to place in the matrix while others caused discussion among the team members. This was mostly based in problems in categorization. Some innovations can be placed in multiple categories; like Facebook. Facebook is an interesting example because it can be placed as both a transformational business model and a radical new service. This because, facebook started of as a service which delivered a new social experience. In time it transformed also to succesful and innovative business model.
Another example is Senseo. We decided not to place it in the product category, even though it was quite an interesting new product at the time. However, we found the business model behind it the most important factor in this case. The co-operation between Philips and Douwe Egberts was the driving force behind the product and therefor (after long debate) the main focus for us in this model.
After finishing the Von Stamm matrix, we have looked a bit further. How do we change products into services? We will highlight some specific products.
The GoPro HD camera for example is placed in the matrix, to Bettina’s delight, as an incremental product. However, this could be transformed into a radical service quite easily. The Go Pro is designed as a buddy for adventurers. A new service could easily be included by adding a GPS tracker and possibly an instant connection with the web, making it a live log including location and images streamed directly to the web. This way, we would create a service that allows people to look over your shoulder whenever you are doing something great. But which will also create a minute to minute memory of your greatest moments.
This in the end has not only changed the products position in the matrix from product to service, but has also increased the innovation level from incremental to radical.
Just changing a product’s innovation level is off course also possible. This is for example possible with the quechua tent. This self opening and settling tent is an incremental innovation. This could be radicalized by changing it into a deposable and biodegradable tent for festivals etcetera.
When looking at extreme changes, we try to move products to either the upper right corner (transformational business model), or to the lower left corner (incremental product). An example is Carglass. They have created a radical new service in which they fix car windows on the spot, without using garages or heavy machinery. On the other hand, Carglass has also created a new product to simply fix carglass with a self hardening resin. This existed already but was perfectionized by carglass. A good example of this exercise.
An example the other way around is the Wall-E vacuum clean robot. This robot can be seen as an incremental product, but in the (slightly futuristic) case of a total neighbourhood robotic clean service, this could be seen as a completely new service or a transformational business model, when you would change the house cleaning business into a citywide program that turns it into a public good.
Oct 04, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
Paradox 20
http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/PARADOX%2020_p25.jpg
In the top picture you can see how our group placed the innovations in the chart.
It is interesting to see that most of them are products or services. This is probably because innovative processes are often not visible for us consumers. Innovative business models are, but we not necessarily get to know it is innovative, since there is only a little attention on business models in advertising.
Besides that, we noticed that we tend to label low-tech innovations as incremental, although they can attach radical new meanings to simple products, as for example the microphone shaped shower sponge does (see bottom picture).
By discussion, we tried to move products towards the upper-right corner, which is not always easy. Some possibilities we found as an example (see bottom picture):
- the Polaroid PoGo camera (or any digital camera for that matter) could be turned in a product-service combination by creating an online community to share your photos.
- the message-toaster could be used in a very innovative business model, by serving advertising messages in breakfast restaurants.
Oct 05, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
6MINUS1
DEFINING TYPES AND LEVELS OF INNOVATION: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVES
During this exercise we discovered that there is no textbook method to define the type and level of innovation for every product. Subjectivity in defining innovation prevents the possibility of a step-by-step manual. However, discussing the different opinions on this field, gave us a feel for the tensions fields within the concept of innovation. The following areas yielded so much tension that we felt the need to mention them.
“Defining the type and the level of innovation is highly dependent on your perspective.”
For most of the innovations we collected, a black-and-white opinion on where to place them could not be formed. For example in the case of the One Laptop per Child project, our opinions differed widely on what aspects constitute the innovation. For the product type the innovation is incremental, because the concept of the laptop is not changed, only the price tag. For the business-model type (if we can speak of a business model when discussing a non-profit organizations) the level of innovation is radical, because the laptop are being sold to governments and NGO’s to distribute to the people.
Another example of an innovation where the placement within the map is highly dependent on your perspective is the chopped vegetable package of the Dutch Albert Heijn. The product cannot be called radically innovative, because pre-chopped vegetables were already available. However, the combination of different kinds of vegetable within one package means that small to medium sized household can prepare meals with a great diversity of vegetables without having to spend much on buying all the different kinds of whole vegetables. On the other hand, we can argue that this product is a radical innovation of the business model-, or service- type. The service increased the value for consumers and the business model changed from selling vegetables to selling small portions of a diversity of vegetables and the service of chopping them.
Our approach to forming a common opinion and placing the innovations in the map was identifying the type of the innovation where the level of innovation was the highest. The differences in opinion illustrate that background and viewpoint greatly influence the perception of the concept of innovation. When working in a professional context, discussing and understanding these differences of perception may lead to greater innovating power and ultimately success.
“The fine border of success in innovation”
The previous insight brought us to discuss the success of the innovations. Some of the products on our map were very successful, while others didn’t catch on. In our understanding, the success of an innovation is dictated by the ability of the innovation to balance on the border of human nature’s inherent resistance to radical change.
For example the product-type innovation of the CD-I (the predecessor of the DVD) was unsuccessful and our view is that this originated from the giant leap from the VHS to the CD-I. There were too many new features and the interaction with the product was too new and complex for the time. Also the price was too high and the offer too diverse. People did not see it as a game console nor as a learning device.
This consequently decreased the consumers’ value perception of the innovation and ultimately led to the failure of the innovation.
However, this view on the requirements of success of innovations may be too simple, because some radical technological innovations do succeed.
Hmm… we are floating from the subject of defining innovation. Let’s stop for now and see where the book takes us.
Blup,
6MINUS1
Oct 06, 2011 @ 11:18 am
Group 14
We had many innovations that were proactive, and some that were reactive such as the xbox kinect (although it is a new technology, it is in our opinion a reaction to the Wii). Perhaps this is caused because pro-active innovations are seen as more innovative than re-active innovations.
We concluded that the “superbus” (which can be seen in top of the service column) was to radical to be used., because a lot of current systems, such as the infrastructure, must be changed before this concept could be implemented. We think emotionaly people are not prepared to see such a bus driving on the current roads. A way to make this concept less radical is by changing the size and features of the bus, so that it fits the current infrastructure more, but keep the service of luxury, fast travel and individual seats alive.
In the right bottom a business model of a pizza website is shown, which provides easy access to pizza shops in your neighborhood. It can be taken to the next level by broadening the website to e.g. a pizza app, which will notice you of pizza shops that are near and will advise you about prices, customization of pizza, etc. This will attract more customers to the pizza shops. Pizza shops can for example pay a small fee to the maker of the pizza site and app, so money is earned on all levels of the value chain.
Group 14
Oct 06, 2011 @ 11:38 am
[PENTAGON]
After a careful selection of 30 innovative products, services, processes and business models we proceeded to categorize them according to their levels of innovation. After this we changed their position in the table and found interesting opportunities. We kept the ones that seemed more plausible and interesting.
This exercise helped us understand the existing levels of innovation, moreover it we gained better insight on how to innovate inside a company. Finding opportunities for innovation is about knowing a company’s advantages and assets, and coming up with creative solutions for future scenarios with these.
We found difficulties with some of the products in which companies have already identified the opportunities around them, and have already started innovating in other levels and areas. We concluded this exercise by structuring all the information into a table (see attachment).
Oct 12, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
The TwentyONEs
2 – Distinguishing types of innovation
During the discussions and practices we think it is also important to consider the different levels the innovation took place. On product/service [outcome level] or on internal level [process/structure/business model]. You can look at innovation on what you get delivered or how it got to you.
Innovations have mixed character; elements are incremental and some are totally new. For example the internet from a user point of view a website could be new service [but we know many websites and online services by now]. However for a company’s perspective it could be a radically new business model.
Nowadays this mixed character is much more prominent also because new innovations have much more touch points. It is not just a technology, product or service anymore. Now products often need complementary services and it is harder to say on what level the innovation took place. This is partly due the fact the worlds gets connected in every aspect; and the focus is much more on experiences and transformations
(see graph page37).
In the previous comment we talked about people being part of different context and this influences their opinions and definitions. This is also very much related to the way people distinguish types of innovation.If you would add the same specific innovation to the different contexts it could be recognized as different type of innovation. This also has to do with the previous experiences the context incorporates.
For example connecting all dutch people to highspeed glasfiber internet might be to many an innovation but for students living on the TU Campus this is nothing new.
Changing the context of an innovation might also create a new meaning. For example a brand establishes a certain innovative portfolio and in the current country (context) new products seem incremental innovations while introducing the products in another country, part of the world the products are typed as radical innovations.
It might now be clear we think the way innovations are typed is influenced by the context you are in. Additionally also by the way the innovation is perceived. Do you only consider the facade of the new thing (which might not so new to you) or do you also consider the changing processes, structures and business models the company had to make in order to deliver you this innovation. You can type innovations differently by putting it in different contexts. As you are subject to different opinions and meanings in different contexts as well.
by The TwentyONEs – who get it done
Oct 13, 2011 @ 1:07 pm
Group 13 - Paper Planes
All the innovations that we’ve discussed in our group are in this chart, sorted by the different types of innovation and the ‘radicalness’ of each innovation.
our chart
If we think of adapting innovations to make them move to different categories, we could move for example the Starbucks business model to the left to make it a service. Starbucks can offer a service where coffee is being delivered to people’s homes or to offices. That way the position of Starbucks in this chart will change to the left from ‘just’ being a good business model (fast food for coffee) to an actual service.
You could also argue that that there is not an awful lot of difference between the categories ‘business model’ and ‘service’ in this chart. For example , as mentioned in the book as example of a business model, is offering the innovative (back then) service of delivering books you order online to your house. Surely not every service is a business model, but all good business models are based on either an innovative service, product or process.
Oct 16, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
LeCON7
Innovation, as mentioned before, is when a company does things in a new way to add value. Therefore the perception of innovations can vary among people, e.g., laggards in the television market might experience 3D television a radical innovation whilst the forefront of the market, the early adaptors might already own one for a while and regard it as an incremental change. However, we found that when sorting innovations there was little disagreement on placing the cards, e.g., we all found Spotify to belong to the category of radical business models. In some cases however, we found it difficult to keep a clear separation between radical and incremental products, e.g., Sony’s bike navigation can be labeled as an incremental innovation being that the device is very similar to known car-navigation devices. On the other hand the fact that it allows bikers to go without a pre-tracked GPS or without maps has a significant impact on the bike experience.
Having a textual title was necessary for determining whether something would fit within a product, service or process range. For example, biofuel-powered commercial flights can be labeled as a service, with the engines on the product-side of this innovation. In the same way, Resomation as an environmentally friendly alternative to incinerative cremation belongs to process, with the module being the product to enable the new process to function.
We noticed that we had little process innovations, this is probably due to the fact that process innovations are not directly visible from the outside; radical process innovations might even be kept secret to sustain the competitive advantage from the innovation.
Oct 18, 2011 @ 8:53 am
Group 11
Clear distinguishing between types of innovations turned out to be hardly impossible. Some innovations seem to overlap. In particular service and business model have things in common; the new type of service can be in fact a new way of doing business and earning money. An example is Spotify; the offer you a free (online) music database, but in between the songs you will have to listen to commercials. If you become a paid member, you can listen to the music without interruptions and limitations.
Furthermore, it is hard to judge whether innovations are considered to be more incremental, radical or transformational. In particular the difference between radical and transformational was not clear. Therefore we first discussed their definitions; we agreed that radical is new-to-the-world (something that did not exist before), while transformational is as well a complete new way of doing something. E-readers are an example of the latter. The perspective from which you look also influences how you define a certain innovation. It is from the company’s point of view (internal) or from the customer’s (external)? The OV-fiets, a bike rental service of the NS, is new to the company, while the customer is already familiar with hiring bikes. So from the external perspective it is considered as incremental, whereas internally it can be a radical innovation.
Deciding what the drivers (internal vs. external) were behind the innovations isn’t black-and-white either. It is hard to go back to the origin of the innovation; the process prior to the launch is not always clear from the end-result. For example the Dyson Air Multiplier; did the development of this product originated from a customer’s need for a silent fan or did an invention of technology lead to this product? Despite it is very interesting to know, we felt like we were missing some background knowledge or history on the innovations to give a good judgement on this.
Here is a link to the overview of types of innovations we made: http://i56.tinypic.com/2vwd8k6.jpg
Oct 18, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
Team Coffee-break
On examining the previous posts, we found that several teams such as Team Synergize&Co, Team EFCOM, 6MINUS1, Group 11, are of the view that clear demarcation of products/services into various categories of Bettina von Stamm Innovation Matrix is almost impossible. However, we disagree with their view. We are of the opinion that type of innovation can be categorically identified to be belonging to one of the categories on proper analysis.
[img]http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/orkut etc.jpg[/img]
For example, consider the Facebook example of Team Synergize&Co. They were confused between whether it is a radical innovation or transformational innovation, but interestingly our team is of the opinion that it Facebook is an incremental innovation!! Why? Early social networking on the World Wide Web began in the form of generalized online communities such as Theglobe.com (1995), Geocities (1994) and Tripod.com (1995). Many of these early communities focused on bringing people together to interact with each other through chat rooms, and encouraged users to share personal information and ideas via personal webpages by providing easy-to-use publishing tools and free or inexpensive webspace. Coming closer to the period of Facebook’s launch in February 2004, we find that Orkut and My Space were quite popular and they were good case studies for any external observer to gauge what worked and what didn’t in online social networking arena. Seen in this context, Facebook was just another website with a tweaked interface. The fact that today Facebook has the largest ‘Market Share’ in online social networking segment does not change the truth that it was just another improvement in the social networking domain !!
Another interesting example that was discussed in our group in order to make the distinction between various types of innovation clear was that of long distance communication media. In past, postal services were the only mode of long distance communication for quite a long time. But Telegraph was a truly transformational innovation in that field. It brought down the time taken for long distance communication from several days/months to almost instantly. Seen in this context, Telephone and Radio were radical innovations in the domain of long distance communication. And the iPhone (the product, and not the business model), just an incremental innovation!
Coming to the part of exercise which required us to reflect on ways to enable chosen companies to move their innovations to adjacent categories (upper right), we dwelled on several interesting cases. Consider the laundry brands of Henkel. The products are indeed incremental innovations driven by the needs of customers (external driven). In a simple product category as detergent, we asked ourselves, what could be the next level of innovation? The answer came quite easily – complete laundry service/solution. Henkel can create whole system which can take care of all the laundry needs of people. Several ‘points of service’ within a city will allow it to keep the costs reasonable due to economy of scale. And clearly, it would be a radical innovation in service domain.
Another interesting example is from the knowledge sharing domain. Knowledge has been collaboratively created since time immemorial. But Wikipedia is a ‘radical innovation’ in the field of knowledge creation on internet. What could be the next level of innovation in that domain? Currently, all the information is available to all the people. However, we asked ourselves – ‘Does everyone need the same depth and width of information?’ ‘Will written text always remain the primary mode of information sharing?’ ‘What about those people who are more visual or auditory in their learning styles?’ We as a team believe that customisation of knowledge in order to fit the needs and calibre of an individual will be the next level of innovation in the sphere of knowledge sharing. And this, perhaps will be a transformational service innovation!!
Team Coffee-break (Group 12)
‘get set for fresh perspectives…’
Oct 29, 2011 @ 5:02 pm
Group 15
types of innovation
We have definitely seen that there are different levels of innovation, only we think it is not as black and white as this figure shows e.g. some products could also be in business models.
This made the chart very subjective.
Regarding the business model, we found that a lot of things would be able to fit there, because it depends on how you look at it. The pizza-burger (now placed as an incremental business model) could also be placed as a product, but we saw it as a new business model of the company that created it. This was mainly because the burger can now be shared with friends, which is a totally new experience and a new reason for buying the product.
It was remarkable how it was possible to move e.g. products to services by adding some features. Usually you do not think about this possibility, since you are designing a product and not the entourage around it. However, we think that it would be very interesting to always look at this possibility since service design is becoming more and more important.
What also was noticeable was the ability to make things less or more radical. Sometimes we found that products/services were too radical for the public at this moment (e.g. the Superbus). To solve this, you could for example introduce a product in phases (e.g. Apple business model) to let the customer get used to the radical product idea.
Oct 30, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
Group18
The ‘In practice’ of page 25 ‘distinguishing between types of innovation’ created interesting points of disagreement and clarifying discussions.
We each brought six innovations we found interesting. For example I brought: OctaTube, PayPall, Ipod, ‘ligfiets’, Tellsell, and sambal peanutbutter. As seen on the picture we put every innovation in to the model given. First we grabbed a card one at a time, but finally we did every card together, because of the heated discussions.
One interesting innovation was Innocent, which is also one of the case studies in the book. Innocent is an interesting product. But we asked ourselves the question, where does the innovation really lay within the company? Innocent’s way of doing business is new. Therefore some of our group members found the innovation in their business model. But what is a business model?
Some of our group members learned from the course NPE from last semester that a business model articulates how a company makes money, it summarizes how a company plans to serve their customers, it describes how a company intends to create value in the market place and it is the way of doing business by which a firm generates revenue. Examples of business models are: Bait and hook model, commercial software model, advertising business model, etc.
The way Innocent makes money is not very innovative; they sell a product, the more they sell the more they make. They do give to charity, but this is not where the real innovation lies.
Innocent uses the brand as a relationship, the vision is ingrained in everything the company does. It connects to the way they make money, the way the product is made and visualized, in their connection with the customer, and in their communication. The way they do this is innovative.
So, yes, it was hard to place them. We did agree the innovation was radical; the innovation was not a total transformation of how it used to be done, but it was a real radical change, which didn’t relay on old techniques.
Finally we placed Innocent in the process column. By doing this we took this column a little wider than only the production process of a product, but saw it as the whole process of NPD.
As seen in the picture, the Facebook Card is cut in half. Again we asked ourselves, where lies the biggest innovation in the company? Facebook started as a social media page, changing the way people communicated with each other. Facebook did this without making money. It already was innovative then. After a while Facebook started advertising, which changed the way advertising is perceived. The ads where personalized. Also companies started their own Facebook pages creating communities around their brands and facilitating in user-generated content.
We agreed Facebook changed the world, therefore placed it on the Transformation row. We cut it in half for the service column ánd the business model column. It transformed communication from the off-line to the online, but also the way companies do business; from brand-owner content to personal and user-generated content.
Also I-tunes and the I-pod are interesting to look at for a second. We did agree on the place the cards should have. The I-pod was not an innovative product. The business model behind this product was, linking it to I-tunes was the most innovative for us. Making the two cards one.
To conclude, this exercise really gave us insights in the definitions of the words mentioned in the book. We all thought we understood what was told perfectly, but when positioning real products in the model, it made us aware of the difficulties; some things are not that black and white.
Oct 31, 2011 @ 4:19 pm
Group 02
This in practice was executed by a group of five people. As discussed in the assignment, thirty innovations were chosen to use. The placing of the different innovations regarding their type and level of innovation lead to many discussions on the specific product or service. Does this innovation represent an entire product range or only one product? Are we talking about this specific business model or all similar business models.
The most important remark to be made in this part of the exercise. The division between the three types of innovation was hard to reach. In the approach used in the exercise, some innovations were placed on the intersection between “incremental” and “radical”. This would suggest that the division between incremental, radical and transformational is a sliding scale. As Jan Buijs explained in one of his lectures, he also does not like this type of divisions. He argues that this division is only potentially interesting in academic debate, but it does not stimulate the innovation process. As Nickerson (1999) states: “for an activity or product to be perceived as creative in science, it must be novel, but not too great departure from prevailing ideas”. This statement focusses on the connection between science and creativity. But it would be an interesting exploration to distinguish the acceptance level of innovations with the actual level of the innovation.
In the internal vs. external and pro-active vs. re-active, a same mapping was used to categorize the innovations in every sector. This resulted in separate mappings of transformational products, radical products, incremental products and so on. It showed that innovations can evolve from al ways of thinking. If a company wants to be innovative, they should we aware of the fact is they are pro-active or re-active. Or if they have an internal focus opposed to an external focus. However, in the best scenario, the company would pursue all four states in order to grow the innovation potential. This way of thinking was the most important aspect of the final tast within the in practice. Using all four innovation drivers in order to create a new innovation.
Nov 02, 2011 @ 10:56 am
Team Nine
Distinguishing between types of innovations
[img]http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/2011-09-22 13.37.03.jpg[/img]
Distinguishing the different types of innovation of a product, service or a process is very subjective. During the discussion it was noticeable how difficult it was to decide what level of innovation each product or service was. This has to do with several aspects. First of all, the terms radical innovation and incremental innovation have very broad definitions that are hard to put a finger on.
A radical innovation brings extreme change into a process, service or a product based on new knowledge. Whereas an incremental innovation is an innovation based on existing knowledge. The question is, what is an extreme change? And what is new knowledge? This is already very subjective to our opinion. People see Apple’s products as radical innovations, but actually they are using existing technology in a different way. Is this still considered new knowledge?
Secondly, it is not always known what the exact drivers are of a company behind their innovations. An example is the Senz umbrella. Did they launch the product because of the new design (storm proof) or did they bring this product to the market because of competitive market behavior or a change in consumer needs?
Another subjective matter is the fact that if an innovation is proactive or reactive. An example is the product Kinect for Xbox 360. Before Kinect the Nintendo Wii was the first product at the market that involved motion controlled gaming that appealed to a wide audience. Kinect is a product that also involves motion controls but it is based on a different technology and it is used in a different way. This product is a reaction to the Wii, but based on different technology. Can this be considered proactive or reactive?
Moreover, there is not always a clear line in the definition between products and services. It depends on how people interpret the service of the product. An example is a credit card, which is a tangible product but it is more about the service it gives. Without the service the product adds no value to the user.
It can be concluded that the lines between opposite definitions, i.e. incremental vs. radical or proactive vs. reactive, are very vague and products, services or processes can overlap or fall under both definitions. It depends strongly on how a person interprets it.
Nov 02, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
Group 23
Our point of view can be seen in the pictures
picture 1
picture 2
Nov 02, 2011 @ 3:58 pm
Four
As a general conclusion one could say that, especially strong brands can be easily shifted within the table and can help generate new ideas. It seem to be a good tool to help brands/companies to broaden their scope and horizon of what they can do to innovate. An innovation can be shifted from a transformation level to an incremental level.
Ryanair can shift from a transformation (a cheap airline service), an existing product settled in a new environment, to an incremental service when selling more services, (which ryanair already does).
Vitra is the top of the best furniture company. The businessmodel transformation introduced by vitra has an unique and strong portfolio: Different and good designers resembled in one fitting portfolio of furniture. This businessmodel can be used in for example the shoe-market, vitra can start selling the top of the best shoes designed by the best designers. It would be a incremental innovation using an old innovation in an existing market.
Bic uses it’s” low involvement products”- process to introduce it for an high involvement product, a cell-phone. A radical change caused by time, 30 years ago you wouldn’t have thought of a throw away telephone.
A good brand is able to shift easily inside the different levels and has also the possibility to shift between different types of innovation. The tool gives a direction, it doesn’t work for every innovation and is strongly dependent on the brand connected to it. It confirms, again, that there’s a relation between design, innovation and brand, they are strongly connected and influence each other.
image for assignment 2
Nov 08, 2011 @ 6:45 pm
3plus3
For this exercise, we have assembled about 30 pictures of innovative products, services, processes and business models and placed them in the matrix of Bettina von Stamm.
The categorisation
Like all the other groups, we had discussions about the categorisation of the innovations. We had, in particular, trouble with distinguishing a service and a business model. We believe that there is a fine line between business models and services, meaning that there cannot be a service unless there is a business model behind it, which actually also applies to products; products also have a business model behind them. Youtube, for example, is a service provider, but has an innovative business model behind it. Therefore, Youtube can actually be placed in these two categories, but because we were focusing on the business model of Youtube, which is transformational, we have categorised it into business model.
Furthermore, we also believe that there is only a small distinction between transformed, radical and incremental innovations. Transformed innovations are most likely interpreted as ‘inventions’ by the crowd, since it is totally new to the world. For example, the transformed service, which ‘gives you access to something new’: Internet, cable television and telecommunication, are also seen as inventions. Radical innovations, which are also new to the consumers and offer them ‘something more’, like interactive television, are a little bit more understandable than the transformed ones, but still difficult to accept. These two categories contain mostly proactive innovations, while the incremental row exists of almost only reactive innovations, which are based on competitions.
The categorisation of the innovations needs and depends on your interpretation. For instance the camera of Nikon, we have placed in the radical category, because we assume that it is the first digital SLR camera ever. If not, the camera would be, of course, placed in the incremental category instead.
During the categorisation, we noticed that most of the innovations are technology based, but some of them were more social based, in which the added value, meaning and the emotion and feeling of the user play a significant role. For example, the Swatch watches, we placed them in the radical category, because they were the first watches which provided the users the ability to express themselves more and made the watches more personal. In conclusion, your interpretation of the products is necessary to categorise innovations, which makes the categorisation very subjective though. (It was interesting that this example was also stated in the book of Jan Buijs. It verified our thoughts on social based innovations.)
We would like to mention a very interesting innovation, the foldable chopping board, since we still do not know if it is a radical or an incremental product. We assumed that it is the first chopping board that is foldable, but still have placed it in the incremental category, because the innovation is not radical enough.
Shifting position
In our opinion, it is quite easy to shift an innovation into a different position in the chart, but what we think is more important, is how the new innovation should be implemented in the market and positioned in the company’s portfolio. If the innovation does not fit the image of the brand at all, it could lead to an unsuccessful project.
Making innovations seem less radical
We can consider the chart as a risk model of implementation or acceptation, incremental being the low risk category and transformation having the highest risks.
For transformed or radical products, we believe the design is what influences the interpretation and thus the categorisation in our minds the most. If the design of those products resembles the incremental products more, the products will be less radical interpreted.
But what if this radical or transformed innovation, or actually
invention, is the first one ever?
For example, the typewriter or the zeppelin, the typewriter is the new way of writing and the replacement of the stamps. The zeppelin is a new way of transportation. Both products are totally new and unknown for the crowd, so how should they be introduced?
According to us, acceptance is the first hurdle the innovation has to pass. This acceptance is dependent on the functionality interpreted by the crowd. If the innovation is handy, it will be appreciated, if it does not have an added value, the innovation will be easily discarded. The second hurdle is the environment, the context in which the product is created, the time and culture. Actually, the categorisation of the vertical axis depends on those aspects, time and culture. In the earlier days and less developed cultures, a cell phone is a very radical product compared to the present and modern cultures.
The acceptance rate also depends on the generation you are in, your personal acceptance and personality, your history and interpretation. The cell phone, for example, is according to us an incremental product. However, for elderly it still is a radical product.
Nov 09, 2011 @ 12:12 pm
peer2peer
our chart can be viewed here.
Nov 09, 2011 @ 11:56 pm
Powers of Ten
Distinguishing between types of innovation
The first task of the exercise had relatively an unanimous outcome. Except for a few, it was easy to agree where to place the products and services on the chart. One example of a polemic product was the paper clip, because some group members did not perceive it as a transformation product, but the majority did.
The Ford brand was the only one represented twice on the chart, innovating as a product, the model T car; and as a process, using the assembly line to produce affordable cars. Both were classified under the ‘transformation’ level of innovation.
Not all team members were familiar with each product and service brought by the others, so it was enlightening to get to know new examples of innovation and to discuss to what extent they affected our lives.
Finally during, the second task, some reflection occurred, as well as a team brainstorming session resulting in creative solutions for changing the innovation levels of a certain category. Below some examples of these reflections and solutions:
Facebook: In the beginning there was no profit, so now the company has changed their business model in order to make the service profitable.
Segway: Making people levitate would definitely be a transformation! We discussed about why we didn’t consider the product so successful in the mainstream market and concluded that this product was not properly designed, it was maybe too radical for its context. The main problem was that people weren’t convinced by it. One person suggested that they first should have launched it with a wheel in front, making it tricycle. In that way, it would possibly be more convincing. Another issue is it’s cost, which is too high.
Senz umbrella: An idea to move this product to the transformation would be making the umbrella have a repelling water function. That could be made through some kind of magnetic field or water repeller chemical shield. Another idea would be a service where you could, through your umbrella, collect water from the rain and deposit it in a water collector unit.
John’s telephone: The idea here was to have only one button on the phone. With this one button your phone communicates you with a central station who will make the calls for you. The service is personalized and has already all your phoning data. After pressing the button and communicating with an operator you just ask: “Call my mom”. This product could then be moved to the service category and the one-button phone to a radical innovation level.
Atm: Make it at your home. That would be radical innovation, but maybe quite dangerous… Having only virtual money would be an innovation on the transformation level!
Nov 10, 2011 @ 12:25 am