Striving for success seems like a very natural and healthy thing to do, and so does striving to avoid the opposite: FAILURE. Unfortunately it isn’t all that easy to avoid failure, but even more important: The urge to avoid failure is actually counterproductive. How companies react to success and failure is indeed related to how innovative the companies are. Non-innovative companies reward success (of course), but they also punish failure. Failurs then, becomes something worth avoiding rather than something to learn from. When the very same companies also accept inaction the course is firmly set for not launching any new innovative initiatives. Not surprisingly, innovative companies reward valiant attempts (things that other companies might think of as failures) as well as successes.

A recipe for designing innovations

When you’re trying to implement an innovation a very good way to ensure that you are on the right track is to apply the fail fast mindset. It sounds dramatic (but it isn’t) which may be the reason it’s more often referred to as early prototyping. In a business context that involves creating a minimum viable product or service and then putting it out there for customers (or a representative group of people) to respond to it. Since the product or service is far from ‘market ready’, the development cost you have to put down before getting crucial feedback is modest – or even low. Another good thing about the reduced development cost is that the prototype can be thrown away or modified beyond recognition with little or no risks of ending up in the endless depths of the sunken cost fallacy. Just relax – it didn’t cost that much to begin with anyway!

Honest feedback is the best kind of brain food

The best part of failing fast is that each time you fail, that is each time you present an inferior product or service to a group of people, you get valuable knowledge back. The earlier in the process you can get honest feedback the earlier you can adjust your thinking and start improving your innovation. Given some iterations you should be able to create a truly delighful product or service.

Need for persistence

You should be aware that it might take more than ‘some iterations’ to get it right. Rovio that designed Angry Birds, one of the most profitable games ever, provides a good example. They didn’t stumble upon pain-free overnight success. Angry birds was the 52nd game that Rovio made – meaning that they created 51 more or less failed games before succeeding with Angry Birds. Without persistence, without failing fast and without some extra resources they wouldn’t have been able to make it. But they adopted a learners attitude, kept improving and beat the poor odds of succeeding in the app store.

To mitigate the risk of spending too much money, time and other resources on a project that will not succeed you can define the failure point up-front. Describe what would make you surrender and say “it just isn’t worth it anymore” – and stick to it as you develop your product or service.

Learning is key

Learning and improving is the key to success. Egos and prestige can easily get in the way. Trying to learn from a “failure” when nobody admits that anything was less than perfect is obviously not all that easy. One way to avoid that trap may be to aim to “suck a little less“. It might also be worthwhile to remember what Bill Gates had to say about it:

Success is a lousy teacher

Related reading @ Bob Sutton’s typepad
Image by Thomas Hawk

Water is essential to life on earth, yet humans populate many regions where there is a huge water shortage. If necessity is the mother of all invention it should come as no surprise that the number of innovative solutions to remedy this problem is huge. One of those solutions recently caught my attention; People have literally learned how to catch the water in the air!

First off it is really interesting to think about how water is collected in nature. Insects catch fog or mist on their bodies, spiders catch water in their nets and plants like cactuses and moss can collect enough water to sustain themselves in deserts.

In ancient times people have used several techniques to catch fog or mist for different purposes. One technique includes designing walls with a lot of surface (e.g. honeycombed walls) so that a lot of water could be collected and then led down to plants. Other solutions include piling up stones so that the condensed water droplets drip down and is gathered in water reservoirs.

A moderns solution uses large nets that are erected in high-lying areas. Gutters and hoses are used to lead the gathered water into reservoirs. This kind of solution can gather between 5-10 l of water per day and square meter of net depending on exact location and weather conditions. Wind and fog is a good combination for catching water as that will make a lot of moisture pass through the nets.

Related reading: The importance of water @ nasa, A global shortage of water @ whyfiles & Harvesting fog @ scienceafrica

Photo by Jeff Smallwood

“The single biggest reason companies fail is that they overinvest in what is, as opposed to what might be”

The insightful statement above was made by Gary Hamel – a renowned expert in business strategy. What this statement tells us is that innovation, things that might be, is essential to the survival and prosperity of companies and other organizations in the 21st century.

The findings in IBM’s Global CEO study from 2008 shows that CEO’s are hungry for change and disruptive innovation not only when it comes to products and services, but also business models.

The Global Innovation Index 2011 states that

“innovation is important for driving economic progress and competitiveness—both for developed and developing economies”

meaning that innovation actually is essential not only for companies, but for our societies as well.

In the early beginnings of mankind innovation seems to be what set us apart from our closest relatives and the rate of innovation seems to be ever increasing.

In a world where change has been and still is the constant our ability to innovate might be the most important key to our success.

Image by Barkaw

The hard question of innovation is this: Should we pursue this new idea or not? If you do not move on with it you may be missing out on a great innovation that may bring prosperity to your company, or that key innovation that helps your company survive. On the other hand you may be much better off not pursuing the idea at all. Maybe it will be one of those horrible failures that just sucks the life out of you?

Getting the right kind of input from others before making that decision may be vital.

Yes-man

Positive people that can encourage you to see possibilities may be an invaluable asset. Without positive people in their team NASA would surely not have landed a man on the moon (that is another disucssion, please) nor would Shackleton’s men have survived a winter on the south pole.

No-man

Negative people instead tend to tell you about the reasons you will fail. They can tell you that the O-ring will burst and your spaceship will explode, or that your warship will sink before it gets out on open water. Shielding yourself from this kind of valuable feedback is comparable to not considering risks. You will not benefit from closing your eyes on risks, unless you want to build a museum for sunken ships!

The way we are wired

You may think it is an oversimplification to say that positive people will encourage and negative people will predict your doom, but if so you have science against you.

We as a species have survived thanks to our ability to form habits. Without habits we would be forced to pay just as much attention to a task the 100th time as we did the 1st time. This isn’t only true for controlling the body (like walking), it is equally true for the way we think about things. However, as soon as we have formed a habit, it will take time, energy and effort to change it. For the survival of the species that may actually be a good thing, if we all changed habits very fast we might start doing something with unforeseeable yet catastrophic consequences that wipes out all or almost all humans.

While changing slowly may be a good thing for survival, it has some interesting consequences for how we see the world. When we look for information (e.g. perform a search on internet) and recall memories we do so selectively. We have a tendency to focus on information that confirms our already existing beliefs and points of view. The confirmation bias has been known in science since the 1960s.

So, generally speaking, positive people will see possibilities and success, negative people will see problems and failure.

The balance

To get the balance right you need both positive and negative feedback. Those that see the opportunities of the world can give you tremendous energy and be the difference between doing it or not doing it. Those that foresee trouble can help you know more about the potential pitfalls of your innovation so that you ca take measures to steer clear of them. When you see the possibilities as well as what it takes to steer clear of the risks, you will be able to make a better decision.

Read more @ wikipedia.org

Image by Justin Liew

The words invention and innovation sounds kind of similar, but although the concepts are related to one another they are not the same thing. Both words can be further qualified with descriptive words like Disruptive, Radical, Incremental and Sustaining. Examining all these different concepts and how they relate should make for an increased understanding and better communication. That in turn should lead to better decisions. Here is my 2 cent on how to make it easy to think about these things.

Invention is not innovation

This is an important distinction. An invention is a new and original way to do things, or a new thing that has not been seen before. Innovation on the other hand is about putting inventions to good use. Invention requires specialist knowledge and creativity, innovation requires practical application. Theodore Lewitt put it very elegantly in a letter:

“Creativity Is Thinking Up New Things. Innovation Is Doing New Things.”

The progress we make in business and our societies is due to innovation, but innovation in turn depends on invention. In economic terms the difference relates to availability on the market. A simple way to separate the two concepts is to say that when an invention becomes available as a product or a service it has transformed into an innovation. Strictly speaking though, an invention can be available to some people – e.g. its inventors, their friends and test groups – without being an innovation.

Radical and Disruptive

Radical Innovation and Disruptive Innovation sounds kind of similar. However, in the most popular book on innovation (The Innovator’s Dilemma) they are not used interchangeably. Radical is used to describe a technological or research breakthrough. Disruptive is used to describe a dramatic market change.

Incremental and Sustaining

Incremental Innovation and Sustaining Innovation also sounds more or less like the same thing, but not so. Incremental means that research-wise this was no revolution. Sustaining tells us that the effect on the market was more like a strengthening of positions.

In order to avoid misunderstandings I recommend that the term Innovation is not used to describe all these cases. Below I give my suggestion on what words to use. Also, to understand the concepts better it is good to see them all in the context of market penetration. The figure below illustrates this.

Radical Invention

In this stage amazing discoveries and inventions are thought up, but the market penetration is low. A good alternative to the term Radical Invention is Radical Research.

Incremental Invention

In this stage improvements on already existing inventions are carried through, i.e. to make an innovation easier, safer or more economic to use. A good alternative to the term Incremental Invention is Incremental Research.

Disruptive Innovation

This is where new markets are created and where underdog companies can topple the big market dragons. Disruptive Innovation is key when implementing a blue ocean strategy.

Sustaining Innovations

This is where the companies that dominate the markets improve and continue to grow or safeguard their market shares. Some new competitors may enter the market. In this stage we have more of a red ocean strategy, or perhaps a red ocean market battle.

Not a straight path

It’s important to notice that the path from invention to innovation is not a straight one. However, before we can have Incremental Research we need Radical Research. To improve on something we need to have something to improve. By the same token we need Disruptive Innovation before we can have Sustaining Innovation. Before we can work on increasing our market share we need to have a market.

An insight that the figure above doesn’t reveal is that sometimes a Radical Invention may spawn a Sustaining Innovation. Often Incremental Invention is necessary before we have a Disruptive Innovation. The market will not sway easily unless the quality of the products and services have reached a certain level. But this is not a hard rule. If the upsides of a Radical Invention is amazing the effect on the market may be profound.

Related reading: business-strategy-innovation.com, ribbonfarm.com, provenmodels.com & venturebeat.com

Image by henrikj

Malaria is a deadly disease that is caused by parasites that are transmitted when female mosquitoes feed on blood. The disease killed around one million children in Africa during 2008. Every 45 second an African child dies in Malaria.

A successful way of fighting Malaria is referred to as the Sterile Insect Technique or Sterile Insect Release Method. The purpose of this method is to reduce the population of mosquitoes that passes on the Malaria parasite. Male mosquitoes are subjected to nuclear radiation rendering them sterile. Swarms of sterile male mosquitoes are then released into the wild.

Male mosquitoes may mate multiple times, but all the eggs that a female mosquito lays during its whole lifetime is the result of just one mating. When the female mosquito mates with a sterile male there is no offspring, so the mosquito population can be reduced and the spread of Malaria as well as other diseases can be controlled.

Read more @ iaea.org & who.int

Original photos by Brian C & Edoxus

The Swedish King Gustav II Adolf was known as an aggressive warrior king. Once upon a time in Sweden that very King allegedly uttered these words

“Next to God the welfare of the nation depends on its navy”

In 1625 he ordered four new warships and the finest of them all was named after the ruling dynasty; The Royal Warship Vasa.

The King wanted a truly magnificent warship and specifically added an extra gun deck. It was a never before seen design but would add firepower that would come in very handy in battles.

The extra gun deck also affected the balance of the ship, it specifically made her top heavy. Tests showed that the Vasa was very unstable, but nobody dared tell the king about the problems.

In august of 1628, on it’s maiden voyage, Vasa capsized and sunk after sailing around 1300 meters. Around 50 sailors drowned and the ship never fired any of it’s guns in battle.

Read more @ hopperman @ blogs.forrester.com, wikipedia.com:Henrik, Johan Avard’s Corner & vasamuseet.se

Image by Debarshi Ray

The rate of innovation is increasing, and have been increasing for a very long time. The rate of innovation even seems to be unaffected by wars! Below I list three big reasons for this.

New combinations

A lot of our innovations consists of new combinations of existing innovations. So when the number of innovations increases the possible new combinations of innovations increases dramatically. Unexpected combinations, such as the combination of inventions from different fields, often have the most disruptive effects.

New problems

Although we are successful in creating new innovations, they are rarely perfect. They provide some advantages (or else we dispose of them), but also disadvantages. Ultimately these disadvantages are problems that need new solutions, that is new innovations. One obvious example of this is the pollution that comes comes along with the use of combustion engines. This has lead to a lot of new innovations, e.g. catalytic converters and fuel-cells.

Human nature

We tend to increase our expectations over time. The Japanese professor Noriaki Kano have developed a very successful customer satisfaction model that shows how something that once exited us, becomes something we expect more of. Eventually we even feel utterly dissatisfied if we do not get that something that once excited us. A simple way to handle this human urge is to continue innovating stuff.

Learn more @ Meaningful innovation (GoogleTechTalk), Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence & care2.

Image by x-ray delta one

In 1874 the german chemist Felix Hoffman wanted to create a new kind of medication; a safe non-addictive drug that would help people addicted to the great painkilling drug Morphine. While working for the medical firm Bayer he was able to synthesize diacetylmorphine.

During tests people said that they felt heroic so Bayer registered a new trademark called Heroin. The drug was commercially marketed for several years prior to the first world war as a painkiller as well as a cough medicine for children.

The number of Heroin addicts around the world is huge today. Morphine was developed around 1810 and available on the market around mid 1850. After the US civil war (1861-1865) tens of thousands us citizens were addicted to the drug. In 1925, when Heroin had been on the market for around 27 years, the number of Heroin addicts was estimated to 200 000. The negative effect on mankind from Heroin wildly surpasses that of Morphine.

A note on Hoffman: At roughly the same time Felix Hoffman also synthesized aspirin, a very successful medical drug.

A note on other medical firms: Several other medical firms also produced drugs that are today considered street drugs.

Image by Matt Garland

Back in 1968 Spencer Silver, a chemist working for 3M, wanted to invent a strong adhesive. The adhesive he ended up with was however very weak. This was exactly the opposite quality that Spencer originally wanted in his adhesive, but he refused to think of it as a failure. The adhesive had other qualities too, such as not leaving any residue when it was removed. Spencer went on to market and even deliver seminars about the adhesive at 3M.

Six years later his colleague Arthur Fry had a problem. The notes he used as bookmarks in his hymnbook kept falling out. Arthur remembered the Spencer’s seminar and tried some of the adhesive on some paper notes. It was a success! The notes were kept in place and when removed there was no trace of the adhesive or any damage on the book pages!

3M developed the product and used some scrap yellow paper in their initial tests (remember most post-its are yellow?). Today multiple post-it products are available and they are some of the most popular office products ever.

Read more @ ideafinder.com and wikipedia

Image by M0J0jojo