Despite an over-abundance of media coverage about the importance of innovation in recent years, it now seems the business media may not have gotten its point across. Instead of hailing innovation as The Next Big Thing, journalists and book authors now wonder if there’s an Innovation Gap in U.S. business. The September 22nd issue of BusinessWeek, “Keeping America Competitive,” is coupled with online articles like “Firing Up America’s Idea Economy” and “Can America Invent Its Way Back?” Judy Estrin also examines flagging innovation culture in her new book, Closing the Innovation Gap.
frog works on the front lines of innovation. Our designers, strategists, and technologists not only keep up with market trends, they create them. So when we heard about a so-called “innovation gap,” we asked all four of our US studios what they thought. In one hour 50 frogs responded.
Every company has features and functionality that all competitors have or will have soon so the only way to really advance is through innovation......and breaking the mold and making a better customer experience that grows and elevates both company and consumer culture to the next level of products and services. The US will not grow and flourish if we want to make things more feature-rich as there is no real sustainable value unless we innovate. We are supposed to break barriers and boundaries to create new things and experiences. It is Corporate “Darwinism”...and if they don’t evolve they die. Keith Miller, Business Development Director, Seattle
It’s a competitive world (as it has always been), but at the same time, the playing field is more leveled now than it has been at any other time in history. The advantages don’t all lie with the players at the table with the biggest chip stack. The difference now is in the brainpower and the personalities who comprise the business. The more successful companies get, the bigger they get – the bigger *any* organization gets. And the more entrenched a company’s interests become, the more entitled they feel, which leads to being more ossified, less flexible, and less willing to take risks and make waves. It’s why troughs follow long period of growth. It’s why the once nimble and alluring energy that a company once had bleeds out. There will always be younger upstarts who have the big guys in their cross hairs and who are willing to take risks to get there. If companies want to stay competitive, they have to take risks – they have to innovate. Otherwise that downward trend continues until they’re no longer viable – i.e. when some other, more-flexible, more-innovative company makes them obsolete. Matt Howell, Technologist II, Austin
At least from a technology perspective, innovation is cyclical going between the tangible/quantitative/objective (expressed and verified outwardly) and the abstract/qualitative/subjective (expressed inwardly). Groups and organizations create new, enabling frameworks and new processes in one phase, and they adopt and reinvent products and services in the next. The innovation that occurs in the first phase often goes overlooked because it doesn’t directly translate to quantifiable results in the market place. So, I don’t believe there’s an innovation gap at all. The media is just looking in the wrong places for it right now. For example, the cool sh*t (innovation) that has been going on with platforms such as WPF/Silverlight, Flash/AIR, Android, etc. will enable the next round (or they will fill the gap) of innovation that the media will fall in love with. Robert Tuttle, Principal Architect, Austin
There isn’t an innovation gap yet, but there’s going to be one... Rising unemployment, inflation, inequality: America’s innovation potential comes from the philosophy of the American dream – the idea that anything we envision is possible, anything we want to become, we can accomplish. But as we begin to encounter more and more resistance to this notion of upward mobility (and indeed, inequality is at an all-time high across America, and mobility increasingly difficult), that wide-horizon thinking falls away. Declining educational standards: As inequality rises in America, so does the education divide. Poorer students do not learn the skills necessary for competition in today’s workforce, not only because our school systems are failing them, but because our society presents them with dead-ends. The result is fewer qualified members of the future workforce, putting us at a disadvantage as nations across Europe and Asia invest new money and energy in education. Declining Funding: Right now, many of America’s true innovations (and innovators) come from academia – from the engineering and medical fields, especially. But in the past five years, federal funding for these programs has been cut, resulting in a slow “brain-drain,” whereby top thinkers are beginning to flow into Asia and parts of Europe, where funding is more readily available. This is further supported by tightening immigration policies in America, which threaten our ability to draw top thinkers from abroad. What needs to be done? We need to reexamine the governmental policies that shape our society, before it’s too late for our businesses. Samantha Holmes, Communications Associate, New York
Yes, there is an innovation gap. I think it's because American companies, for whatever reason, temper their concepts to false notions of "what customers want." Not enough business leaders ask "What if I'm wrong?" Not enough guard against groupthink. I can't answer this question without picturing the American car industry, which spent the last fifteen years convincing itself that Americans wanted SUVs and trucks and wouldn't buy small cars. The success of the PT Cruiser, the New Beetle, the MINI Cooper, and the Chevy HHR illustrates (I think) that they were just tired of all cars looking the same. Comparing "concept cars" to real-world cars only illustrates car companies' reluctance to shepherd a powerful idea to market. It means that so much of the industry's design talent is devoted to creating sketches that won't ever become real. Andrew Dupont, Technologist II, Austin
Once upon a time innovation was the exception to the rule. Products existed unchanged for years. The price of Coca Cola went unchanged from five cents for 70 years! The act of innovation was isolated from the everyday tasks of simply running a company (American automotive companies still work this way). Acts of innovation were allowed to develop in small groups of creatives and agitators, and their work created splashes that rippled out into everyday tasks. Now, though, innovation has become THE mode of doing business. It’s no longer acceptable to introduce a product to the market that basically does what everything else does. Even within existing products, the expectation from customers is that new products will be innovative. The act of innovation and management of innovation is being conducted by middle managers that, in times past, would not have been exposed to such constant change. By their very definition, these managers are risk adverse. They’ve been tasked to foster innovation against their nature. Every day innovative ideas are being born and die in the lower rungs of management suffocated in their infancy by people ill-equipped to foster their development. The answer? In the Navy, during times of crisis, the rigid adherence to chain of command does a mode shift. The goal is intelligence. During times of rapidly changing conditions, the person with the best information may not be the admiral, but rather the deckhand. An article on this came out several years ago. In businesses that deal with innovation, but where innovation is managed by lower-tier executives, they need a low-risk way to communicate ideas back up. Even if they don’t intend to act on them. They need a bucket into which they can toss their oddball ideas and half-baked schemes so that someone better capable can sift through them and find the diamonds in the rough. Theo Calvin, Principal Designer, New York
Stop operationally analyzing and over thinking risk and start imagining a better world again. The creative solutions will follow. Jennifer Killian, Creative Director, New York
US companies in general are not investing in true innovation. Instead, they have their sights set too much on short term market performance. Innovation is something that requires massive investment in talented internal hires and external firms like frog. Then, those investments must be trusted to deliver - and to act! Ultimately, that means patience and smart planning and execution. Major Korean companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year into innovation because they want to WIN. They truly believe that innovation and the process of innovating will uncover unmet human needs that prove to be the linchpin to success in the market. Apple invested in the iPhone to the tune of 150 million USD and 5 years of top secret work. It has paid off royally. Now companies come to frog and want virtually the same thing for 1.5 million and five months. Yeah, there’s a gap. Some companies get it but most don’t because they’re forced to think short term, and they react instead of innovate. So to develop a culture of innovation, companies need to work with frog, but they also need to have a long enough horizon and trust in our ability to deliver a winning solution. Challenge us and then get out of the way. Develop a full go-to-market plan that starts with front-end ideation. Then develop and vet the opportunity space(s), and validate with design research, frogTHINK!, design, deliver, develop, brand strategy, partner strategy, and customer acquisition strategy. Then go to market! Observe. Learn. Repeat. And lastly, passion. Without it, you can’t innovate (or do much of anything else, for that matter). Dean Kakridas, Major Accounts Director, Austin
Based on my experiences working with large companies, innovation is invariably risky. Employees at large companies aren’t incentivized by upper management to take risks in order to innovate. They are incentivized to ship their division’s widget by CES (or whatever tradeshow to which said widget is relevant). In 2004, imagine trying to pitch to major CE brand releasing an ultraportable notebook without a DVD drive, or trying to pitch to Creative Labs in 2001 an MP3 Player without a display. The Macbook Air and the Shuffle are huge successes, but no one reflects on the fact that Apple took some pretty huge risks to get these products to market. Most organizations simply aren’t structured in a way to encourage creative risk taking in the name of innovation. Secondly, creative, innovative people don’t want to work in large organizations with the aforementioned environment. They work in small companies or start-ups where they are free to take risks and are not hamstrung by bureaucracy. By all objective measures, innovation at start-ups in this country are doing fine. Cormac Eubanks, Principal Engineer, San Francisco
As an innovative country we still provide better conditions for innovation than most places, although the European and Asian design community is growing due to higher growth in those economies. However, inside companies innovation is being strangled by stressed-out workers and optimization. The metrics for creating organizations is also held hostage to the interest of shareholders and managers who look for short time wins. Emile Hoffman, Business Development Director, New York
The US needs to increase importance of Science and Math education in our schools. It starts early. Elementary teachers in the US need more equipment and money for books. In the 1940s and the 1950s' Sputnik-era, American kids were encouraged to grow up to be engineers and innovators. Now kids are encouraged to become businesspeople and make lots of money. We need more innovators and creative folks. We need to encourage more experimentation. Elliot Winard, Senior Technologist, New York
There is no real race between the US and other countries, there’s a global economy and a sort of global awareness and product thinking fueled by the Internet. So “the US falling behind” is maybe less the case than that we now just see more of innovation from other places come to market and it’s easier to make it with that stuff. It’s very hard to say what they’re measuring there anyway in terms of “innovation.” What pool are they looking at and what are they comparing? There’s a lot of extending and mash-up and building on top of things going on. These efforts don’t necessarily change the world, and if looked at naively, they may appear to lack “innovation” in the sense of “rule-breaking, category changing, or paradigm shifting” introductions of new ideas. Seems like people are underestimating some things out there. Is this is a bit of a “everything was better in the old days” myopia? People continue to underestimate the speed at which their behaviors have been – and are still – changing as a result of product innovation, especially in the world of technology. It’s as if they forget fairly quickly how they did certain things in the past and aren’t aware of how they have become dependent on a new technology. These things are perceived as unremarkable so quickly it sometimes hides the fact that not too long ago even showing it in a “future demo” made people laugh and consider it “too blue-sky.” Innovation IS hard in that it remains difficult, and it’s risky to deliver truly new ideas in a product form to market to be used by real people. Ideas are cheap, but making them real is often not. Plus, the product itself is just half the innovation. In the world today your STORY counts a lot, and brand and perception is crucial for success and adoption by whoever your audience is. In addition, customers/people expect a level of quality in the things they surround themselves with that is beyond what was expected in the past. So you have to hit a pretty high level of fit and finish and quality right off the bat, and tell the right story around it, or the product reputation is shot right out of the gate. So the game changed a lot I think compared to the past. From my perspective – even in the current economic downturn – I have seen no sign of a lack of innovation, or the intent to innovate, or a slowing of the pace, or signs of “let’s play it safe.” Not at all. There was a story recently about the demise of things like the Palo Alto Research Center or similar major research facilities. And MSR (MS Research) was mentioned as one of the last bastions of major real true research, which is supposed to lead to innovation. But my confidence that those facilities actually break tremendous ground and introduce innovations that will change the world is fairly low. What has come out of that really? What research is really cutting edge and then leads to product? I see much more than new developments or progress in technology/technological capabilities fuel innovation, picked up by Design to take optimal advantage of new capabilities, and made into truly useful and relevant product/experiences for people. There could be a change in HOW innovation is being done from the past to how things happen now. Again I think the internet has changed a lot. For example it used to be that scientific publications were the place to really get info and learn about new things done elsewhere. I have plenty examples of how I did my work before the Internet existed to illustrate. It was very much about university and research lab publications. Now, that space no longer has the cutting edge anymore. We clearly don’t go to CHI to learn about the most edgy UI work being done. Tjeerd Hoek, Executive Creative Director, Seattle
On this topic, I think of a recent article in Fast Company regarding China’s resource grab of Africa. The observation on those countries’ relationship was that “China knows exactly what it wants from Africa, and Africa has no idea what it wants from China.” All things aside regarding the practices articulated in the article, China, if nothing else, exhibits a clear understanding of their goals and the game they want to play. Regarding innovation, and my position related to leading a sustainability practice, I feel that companies whose leaders have exhibited a vision, a clear set of goals are generally not falling victim to a loss of innovative activity and discovery. In fact, we’re hearing more and more through our business journals how organizations in this space are actually driving innovation because of the goals they have set. (eg. GE, P&G, Method, DuPont, and Interface.) What these examples highlight is the key difference between good leadership and good management. Innovating without a goal or direction is a lot like training for a sport but never learning how to score. It might get you in shape, but you’ll never win many games. Eric Wilmot, Principal Strategist, New York
Biggest barrier to innovation in the Fortune 500: chairs in meetings. I was sitting in a meeting recently with a major communications client getting ready to roll out a big innovation initiative internally. It took nearly three hours and 200 people to communicate how they're going to make change happen. How about this: no chairs in meeting rooms. Come in, make decisions, then leave. Nathan Weyer, Executive Director, Major Accounts, Austin
Design from this rich complexity begets a design profession that has a rich and healthy foundation in academic discourse. This discourse emphasizes the role of process, and informed trial and error. The nature of Design and “Design Do” envelops and necessitates drawing connections between seemingly disparate disciplines. Design does examine and consider the role language plays in the creative process as well as the process of use or consumption. A foundation of theory instead of buzzwords increases the potential of the process of Design as a unique method of inquiry and problem solving. While some Designers have had success in integrating their tools and processes, and themselves, into the business environment under the guise of innovation, the notion of innovation is but one potential avenue of inquiry for Design and Design Thinking. Unfortunately, it is the gap between the academic discourse and the professional designer that has created this strange misuse of the word Design and made it harder to appreciate available Design resources found within a corporation. Strategist Larry Keeley, who valued the mentorship of the late Jay Doblin, a designer, professor, and Director of Chicago’s Institute of Design, and the namesake of Keeley’s company (http://www.doblin.com/TeamIndex- FlashFS.htm), has become one of the leading advocates for the use of innovation in product development (Mr. Metrics, 2005). After years of studying the processes that drive new and valuable products in the marketplace, Keeley, in an impassioned reply to Bierut’s (2005) Innovation is the new black, states that innovation is “a NEW FIELD, not just a NEW WORD. I further contend that it has its own methodology, complexity, and professional demands. It will be VERY GOOD for the design field, but it is not the same as the design field.” (Bierut, 2005, online) Keeley is right. The often arbitrary interchange of the words Design and Innovation are doing a disservice to the growth of both concerns. Design can be innovative, and the innovation can be powerful. Design can also be other things: it can be delightful, or heartfelt, or sustainable, or romantic. All of these things need to be better understood, documented, debated and explored if Design is to enjoy the status and solidarity of a respected discipline. And while these qualities may not have a great deal of business value, they hold a tremendous level of human value. That is the benefit, and power, of a unified and unique discipline of Design: it is a field that exists as a champion for humanity. When it has shed the artificial constraints of business, or art, or engineering, the unique discipline of Design can begin to truly affect positive change for society, for culture, and for people. Jon Kolko, Senior Design Analyst, Austin
Innovation means taking a risk. One thing that really rubs me the wrong way is when a company uses Apple as an example but doesn’t have the guts to take a chance. If a client is going to talk about Apple then they need to understand the context. When Jobs came back to Apple, the company was on the verge of death. He stripped the product line down to the bear minimum, eliminated a lot of the resellers to have better control over the retail experience, and made it refocus all of its effort back on its core business of making personal computer that is easy to use. It takes guts to be innovative. Michael McDaniel, Senior Designer, Austin
Reasons for innovation management breakdown: Premature core abandonment. Weak management of core brand portfolio that rejects the CORE brands of the organization (i.e. focusing on new products/projects); largely due in part to unmet consumer needs; thus misaligning corporate strategies with consumers’ vision. Clogged project pipelines. Low-return projects that are merely being “tweaked” to support (perceived) consumer demand; again, largely due in part to not recognizing unmet consumer needs. Resource clog on low-value projects; the “leach effect." Too many valuable people on projects that aren’t ever going to see the light of day. Loren Christopher Schneid, Business Development Director, New York
Overall I would agree that we are at risk of an innovation gap. Estrin’s point of view is largely about technical innovation, which is probably the worst case. Other kinds of innovation – organizational, process, experiential, service – I don’t think the situation is as dire. Fundamentally we have a massive problem with the education system, especially at the K-12 level, that is going to have ramifications for decades. Creativity, risk taking, and inventiveness have been squashed out, in large part by the regressive policies of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind approach. It has focused on the the 3 R’s and back to the basics, and put huge amounts of fear into schools (teachers and administrators), resulting in an almost complete focus on test-taking and filling in bubbles rather than open-ended thought. In my teaching experience and that of people I know (including my wife) at the university level this has clearly had a trickle-down effect of students wanting to be told what to do, lacking risk taking, looking at problems laterally, questioning assumptions, and so on. This scares the bejeezus out of me in terms of what it means for the future of innovation and the country itself. Just at the time when we need to be preparing students for a future of massive complexity and change, our education system has stepped back to an 18th century model of rote learning geared toward industrial manufacturing. On the flip side I’ve also found that are more sophisticated clients are in a state of innovation surplus rather than innovation lack. They’ve gone through the first wave of cranking up the innovation engine, and realized that it has caused themselves to get spread too thin and unfocused. So they are looking for help prioritizing and setting a vision about which are the the most effective innovations to pursue. But making that decision is somewhat soft. There aren’t conventional analytical techniques that will help solve it. So you have to be creative about how you make those strategic decisions! The values that she promotes (risk, openness, patience, etc) are nothing new. These have been well-known for decades. The bigger problem is: what’s getting in the way of them being put into practice. What also might be of interest is an interview that Jess McMullin did with me for his blog:A conversation with Adam Richardson of frog design. It touches on some of the same topics. Adam Richardson, Director Product Strategy, San Francisco
I do see a gap. I think a lot of companies don’t understand how important it is to spend the $$ on “design process” to make their products not just 10% better than their completion, but 10 TIMES better. Realizing they need to "separate themselves with innovation” instead of being scared to be different. Too many companies today are trying to please so many personas that by doing so they create mediocre products! Andy Novotak, Senior Technologist, Austin
America is no longer investing in the fundamentals (education, infrastructure, R&D, etc.). I get the impression from the mainstream media that the average American expects that we should remain at the top simply because we are The United States of America, and not because we're investing our individual and collective money/time/effort/passion. Special interest groups have successfully lobbied our government to impose restrictions on innovation. The vast majority of corporations seem solely focused on increasing profits, not in re-investments or altruism. The collective intelligence of our country seems to be decreasing. Advice: Invest in education. Invest in R&D. Reward/champion individuals and companies responsible for innovation (try to make innovation cooler than American Idol and Survivor). Innovation usually occurs when an individual/company is focused on more than just profits. A product/service should have some sort of unique value to its users or the community (while still generating revenues). Liz Hunt, Technology Director, Austin
Some speculations on reasons for the gap: Innovation is most effective in accelerating the growth of development in nations that have reached a threshold of development – the US, Western Europe, and Russia had a lead, and exploited that lead. Now that a wide range of former developing countries have caught up - and in some cases exceed - the development level of the former powers, innovation is becoming less concentrated. The technology sector consumes a disproportionate amount of brainpower – US engineering and science talent used to be more evenly distributed, leading to innovations in a wide range of industries that played off one another. Thought leadership in innovation has spread the ideas but not the expertise required, leading to unsuccessful innovation followed by a decrease in the equity of the idea of innovation. Corporate culture: unacceptability of risk taking – true innovation can not be guaranteed, only incubated; start-ups think long term and are led by visionaries, established firms seek only short-term profits due to shareholder pressure. the role of education in innovation, and culture in education… entropy: innovation enabled new corporate empires to be formed, which have now become stagnant, yet which maintain virtual monopolies. “Chicken and the egg:" did the lack of innovation contribute to the weakening of the economy, or vice versa? Recommendations: look to the few web 2.0 companies that have managed to crack into other the economies of countries than the ones in which they started. Foster innovation programs/practices that either come from the bottom up, or the top down - skip middle management. Look at Google's 15% time as a meta-innovation practice. Promote strategic customer experience focused visionary thinking into the executive level – look at Apple (don't win battles and lose wars). Rod Graves, Designer II, San Francisco
In a world that is so sophisticated with such interrelated dependencies in motion, it requires an organization or individual heroes within an organization to see the real issues and respond with real solutions. This is often extremely difficult as it requires a an almost omniscient understanding of all the factors that contribute to a particular market space or market opportunity. This is compounded by the “unmarket” effect of not knowing where a market is before one exists, presenting an incredibly challenging setting for the emergence of innovation. In a global market, obvious opportunity spaces are explored faster. Innovation often goes hand in hand with failure. When failure “is” an option, it is much more likely that “trying out” the "unmarkets" allow you see what works and what doesn’t, which in turn offers insight into the effectiveness of particular innovations. With a global market and global innovation, more people are trying different things and all from different perspectives. Inevitably, someone will hit a successful solution faster in this decade than the last. So how can US companies compete with a culture of innovation? Leverage the melting pot - the US is inherently a melting pot of multiple cultures and one of the most advanced in leveraging technology to connect people together. Leverage this engine of perspectives to understand where potential successes and failures lie. “Try and fail” early and often, AND with more people. Then share this aggressively. Also, point your efforts in the right direction. Use a shotgun approach but combine that with some focus, constraints, and strategy. Make intelligent explorations cooperatively. Alex Tam, Design Analyst II, San Francisco
Innovation is critical for companies (and countries) as we continue to evolve and compete in a global economy where product innovation must be rooted in a type of thinking that measures profit not merely based on monetary benefits, but on environmental, agricultural, geopolitical, and cultural ramifications. Today’s average consumer is much more knowledgeable (as information is more easily accessible and can spread more freely), and will therefore demand such innovation before spending their hard-earned money. Ratna Desai, Designer II, San Francisco
Companies often tell us they want the next iPod. But are they ready to be the next Steve Jobs? Someone at the top of the organization has to have the courage and vision to overcome the inertia of the stable boat. Is the risk of doing nothing greater than the risk of trying something new? Tom Rohrer, Senior Design Analyst, San Francisco
The concept of “designer” as a profession (in a Western sense) is relatively new to China. In recent history, Mao’s artist-workers were the closest to the concept. Even as recently as the late 90s there were only a handful of design schools in China. Now there are close to 500. These are not just programs but full fledged design schools. What’s happening with US design schools? How much is innovation tied to education? At the heart of most innovative ideas there’s momentum — and this kind of momentum should not be ignored. If US Schools want to invigorate their programs — and their students — they should work on partnerships with the rising Chinese design schools and encourage a culture of cross-pollination that mirrors the East-West landscape of design and business that they’re sending students into. China is really just the most dramatic example. India, Japan, Korea, and India can’t be ignored either. School policy and programs can be sluggish to change in the US — and inertia is a dangerous antidote to innovation. Chelsea Holden Baker, Content Producer, San Francisco
Much of the innovation that I've seen recently has not been in the form of new wizz-bang, feature-loaded products, but rather, taking a look at how we can invite technology into our daily lives to enhance our experiences and social connections. We've put more of an emphasis on simplification and automation of existing technologies. Jeremy Adam, Designer I, Austin
Innovation is second nature when you work the way frog does. It’s all about triangulating all the inputs available at any given time and using conceptual creativity to leapfrog into new ideas. Innovation today is either too broad (brainstormy, loose, casting about wildly for an idea), too constricted (trying to innovate just through evolutionary UI, or tech, or production), too “me too” (just trying to outdo the guy next to you). Here’s what we do and how it equals innovation: We ask ourselves, what is the design challenge as our clients see it? What is REALLY the design challenge, the real intent of what they’re trying to do and achieve strategically, reformulated by us? Then we look outward. What's happening in the market? What's happening with technology? What's happening with our clients (initiatives, IP, tech, etc)? What's happening with users and consumers? What are some interesting trends (culturally, technologically, socially, etc)? Then we triangulate all those pieces of information. We discern patterns, we uncover openings, we connect seemingly unrelated bits, and we use our creative ability to leapfrog that view and birth the next thing, the next idea, the next level of strategy and design and making. What we end up with is unique, targeted to our clients, differentiated in the marketplace, and meaningful to users. Denise Gershbein, Associate Creative Director, San Francisco
Yes, adoption seems to be replacing the idea of innovation on many fronts. This is a blanket statement regarding corporate America, where often new/fresh ideas are rarely conceived and a culture of building upon other “new ideas” seems to pervade. What needs to be done to foment a culture of innovation? There are a number of ways to approach this, whether it be as a large scale corporate paradigm shift where creativity and innovation have a new value and reward system or on a smaller grassroots level within a given company. A cultural shift would take redefining the value reward system in such a way that fosters the exploration of unique ideas and creative behavior. This new valuation would be heard in the education system and pre-corporate America, and it would resonate within our social environments in a way that would trigger behavioral change. On a grass roots level a company has a number of tools at their disposal, from offering incentives for innovation through a gamut of education channels, to structuring a physical environment to promote creative exploration. David Mahlmann, Creative Director, Seattle
Well, this isn't a voice from the US but it's important to have a European perspective on the subject: Innovation has become a business-only perspective. Either that, or it comes out of technological development. Of course that's what this is all about. Still, meaningful innovative breakthroughs always respond to people's needs, which means they're not only innovative but relevant. We use research and user insights as drivers for our innovations - I think we're still one of the few out there. I believe that real innovation cannot be created by marketing or engineering.Ralph Bremenkamp, Associate Creative Director, Stuttgart
Innovation is for the bold. Time spent in front of a two-dimensional computer screen or television can impair interaction with a three-dimensional world, and impair three-dimensional creativity. The focus of public education in the US is on testing, limiting the development of “critical thinking” skills. Maslow’s hierarchy may stimulate some thinking for this article. Government interference in Big Business (i.e., pharmaceuticals, oil) limits corporate research and development. Need is an incentive for innovation. The idea that government should be a “benevolent parent” to all citizens stifles innovation. US citizens are accustomed to electing officials through a democratic process. The global economy “elects” world leaders by purchasing their products. The desire for our human species to survive can be an impetus for innovation, but current US culture recognizes little need for such innovation. Instead, we innovate to support luxuries such as comfort, intellect, pleasure, and life extension. Holly Smyth, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, Austin
As any given market space becomes more evolved and populated, it can become more difficult to provide true "pack separating" innovation, many times it is because companies are expending the majority of resources to simply keep up with the Joneses or perhaps because all of the low hanging fruit has been plucked. Additionally, in this tightened economy, innovation translates to many businesses as risk. There are also fewer start-ups pushing the market toward innovation, due to the decreased availability of angel investors. Large companies often tend to rest on their laurels when not chased down by smaller, more hungry competitors. Therefore, if there is in fact an innovation gap, it's is driven largely by economic factors. People cease to push the envelope when they're survival instincts tell them to hunker down and weather the storm (note the commodities boom within the stock market over the past two years). Historically, a large percent of innovation is sourced from the bottom up, these people haven't stopped coming up with good ideas, they simply don't feel motivated to pursue them or don't believe that their employers deserve all the fruits of them. In either case, the simplest prescription is a combination of valuing innovation as part of your corporate culture and/or having team devoted entirely to it. Promoting rock star innovators, whether it be an internal team, consultancy or individual, pushes others to challenge themselves and and value the innovation waiting to be unleashed within them. Meriah Garrett, Design Analyst II, Austin
The gap is two-sided and widening due to both an innovation slowdown in the US and acceleration of innovation in several other markets. There are numerous factors to both, and they are far from universal, so we will continue to see isolated counter-examples of successful innovation in the US. I break the factors into several categories: Organizations: public companies are driven to quarterly results, and the financial markets reward certainty. Purposefully or not, public corporations have evolved organizationally to provide certainty back to those markets and as a result, incremental results with a firm time line and growth are strongly rewarded. The downside of taking a chance on a blockbuster is just not worth it. Normally, product portfolio strategy would facilitate some areas of risk-taking. This is relatively easy with a financial portfolio, it is extremely difficult and rare in product or service development as most organizations can not sufficiently insulate the creative or approval processes from the standardized low-risk paths to achieve results. Why is this unique to the US? It’s not, but in developing markets there is less public ownership and less of a quarterly focus on results. Channels: where public companies fail, we would expect private companies to succeed. In general, this IS where we see innovation emerge. The issue is that the distribution channels are generally still controlled by those large, public organizations. It is extremely difficult to get your product to consumer without working with a large, risk-averse organization. The internet was supposed to democratize these channels, and consumers certainly have more information at their fingertips than ever before. However, purchases still mostly occur through the same major channels we have always used, and we have seen increasing consolidation both online and in brick-and-mortar. In developing markets, the distribution channels are far more fragmented. It may be more inefficient, but it gets a far more diverse set of offerings to market. Regulation/litigation: bankruptcy and patent policies previously uniquely drove innovation in the US. An extremely liberal bankruptcy policy allowed innovative minds to fail nine times in order to succeed on the tenth try. Pushed by credit lobbies, we have reformed bankruptcy law to exempt student loans. Our brightest minds coming out of top-schools can’t take the same risks with unforgivable loans hanging over their heads. The patent office was formed to protect ideas. It has evolved into a tangled mess of litigation, overwhelmed by requests, and granting patent rights to whoever can write the best application. If the only downside was a failure to protect existing ideas, we would be no worse off than China. However, the additional result is that large companies are using patent law to bludgeon and intimidate small innovators, and extend exclusivity on existing, incremental product lines for as long as possible. Talent Pool: American universities continue to be a bright spot and drive innovation; however, primary education has not only fallen but has shifted more and more focus from creativity to performance standards in a false belief that this will keep us competitive in a global market that ironically has killed our distinguishing competitive advantage. At the same time, we have made it more difficult for top talent to come to the US or stay here after absorbing a top American education. Simultaneously, return to home countries or developing markets has become a more attractive option as standards of living and infrastructure have improved. And as I said before, those markets present a cheaper setting and more opportunities to strike it big. The asymptote: Western markets have been scrutinized under the microscope for so long, that opportunities for quick win, low investment innovation is rare. That isn’t to say the markets are perfectly served, but that new or improved products generally require a very significant investment. Developing markets been almost by definition under-served. There is opportunity everywhere for thoughtful, creative, cultural-sensitive thinkers, and it doesn’t take a multi-million dollar budget to make that happen. This effect amplifies the perceived gap as innovation in Western markets tends to be rarer but larger (in monetary value), while in developing markets is frequent but relatively small. Marc Fenigstein, Project Manager, San Francisco
Innovation is seeing now the essence of the future and make it concrete now. It’s foreseen what is behind the appearance. And often the appearance is not the essence. Innovation is risk. It’s trust to your gut. You feel it’s right but you cannot completely demonstrate with present tool. You have no proof that you’re right till you design the product. This is way nowadays there is an innovation gap. Companies have to leave the standard and well-known field and put resources on “thinking lateral." How the top management can justify an investment where they cannot see at the beginning the benefit? A lot of new product that mimic another one. No courage. Boring. Advice: Trust in company people. Trust in company root and be proud of it. The more you trust in your root, the more you are sure to go faraway. Empower dialectics and variety. Think real and simple, but with no mental model. Stefania Marcoli, Designer, Milan, Italy
we are no longer in the business of generating content. Rather, we are in the business of building experiences which allow users to more efficiently evaluate content of their choosing. The scale of available digital content has reached insupportable ranges, gone beyond the ability of the average user to grok unassisted. Now, more than ever, the particularly evolved sense of narrative structure extant in the design mind is needed to create usable and accessible stories around a sea of digital content. One shortcoming of the 'traditional' case study is that it fails to situate instantiated ideas within a continuum, or classification of 'likes.' We almost do this by showing a frog timeline but it still doesn't quite tell the story around context that needs to be told in order for (potential) clients to see why they, too, may need this service or need to be better or different in this or a future moment. Our current case studies colorfully illustrate the WHATs and HOWs but are light on the WHY NOWs, BEGATS + BEGETS. Being able to 'pull-focus' through the ideological space of a solution/product's evolution would be a powerful 'sales' experience. The artifacts we produce here are literally stunning - so much so that they may even deflect critique. creating an informational, temporally centered experience around the ideological origins of our design solutions might be useful in harnessing customer / user critique of the frog method and its outputs. Scott Nazarian, Principal Designer, San Francisco
Fear of the unknown is what's leading to an innovation gap. People are playing it safe. Risk should be rewarded more. Fear of ‘punishment’ if something goes wrong. This is a funny one though. Shareholders/stakeholders punish companies if they don’t innovate, or they punish them if the company goes too far and there is no immediate success. Not the right culture for innovation. Not the right definition of innovation. People always seem to think innovation means something entirely different, but I’d think you can innovate on a smaller scale.Jeannette Schwartz, Program Manager, San Francisco
As one masters a craft, new efficiencies of thought and strong intuitions enable fluid problem solving and reaction to minor change. Inevitable, it seems, these capabilities come with a cost: the ability to make fresh connections and forge new conceptual models wanes with the loss of “floundering” and lateral thinking. I believe this applies not only to the craftsmen, but also to the organizations built of them. It is a truism, today, that large established corporations are unable to escape the rote execution of their trade and move in unexpected directions. Some contend this trap also applies to our nation and perhaps Western culture as a whole. Thankfully it is also widely accepted that innovations, those unexpected moves, are the mutations that allow adaptation to a changing environment and the source of sustainable growth. Even the craftsman who has honed his abilities can escape his (otherwise beneficial) myopia by involving friends unfamiliar with his work to discuss it with him. Likewise, organizations are learning to introduce fresh thought by bringing in friends whose experiences are substantially different than their own. The smart, skilled, and richly experienced problem solvers that can move from craft to craft, stirring up the conceptual pool, will prevent us from stagnating. That’s why I’m here. Hans Gerwitz, Associate Technology Director, Seattle
Innovation requires insight, risk, and change. Too few companies make the effort to truly understand the contexts in which their products are used and the unmet needs their users have. And many companies are adverse to the risks, false starts, and failures that come with exploring uncharted territory. Innovation also requires major changes to business structures and processes. I wonder how much of the so-called innovation gap is really a gap in insight investment or an aversion to risk or reorganization. How many clients do we have who start a project wanting innovation, then when they see what it means either in terms of risk or the change required to their organization end up scaling it back or watering it down? This is why a lot of innovation comes from startups with a good idea, less to lose, and little organizational baggage. Ben Fineman, Principal Designer, San Francisco
Companies are risk-averse. Companies reward their employees (financially as well as in other means) for ‘getting things done’ and for streamlining processes. This results in risk-avoiding behavior of employees: they stick close to what’s there and try to do it just a bit better. Innovation by nature is about taking risks: thinking about opportunities, thinking differently, doing things differently. Leaders/Owners are change-averse. The people that brought companies to their current success have trouble letting go of their ‘success formula’– this is how they made their money. The ‘don’t change a winning team’-thinking kicks in. Stick to the ‘proven’ methods, products and people... Information overload results in Me-Too. The wealth of information out there clouds companies’ vision. All they see is (potential) competition, approaching from all sides. Instead of looking forward and setting their own vision based on their strengths and capabilities, they lose sight and look sideways, reverting to ‘me too’ products, to keep up with the Jones. Politics and layers of management. Of course there are people within companies, at any level, that have good ideas. The path to get these ideas out, get buy-in and get traction is daunting... Wading through the different layers of management, especially when the idea involves different departments to collaborate or make changes, is a lot of work and it is risky (from a career perspective). For most it is not worth it. Promoting the smartest and brightest. Doing good work in a company is getting rewarded with a promotion. Few of the ‘smartest and brightest’ are able to lead and inspire their teams to accomplish the same or more than they themselves would have done as individual contributors. Instead of doing what they do (did) best, they get caught up in company management machinery. frog is a not just a design company, we’re a change agent. We are opening people’s eyes to see their own world in a different perspective. Often we’re in situations where somebody within an organization needs us, as a third party, to say the things and do the things they can’t do as employees (but then better and break through layers of politics). What this means though is that: We need to do our homework: building up a solid understanding of the companies' core strengths, qualities and limitations. This may come from the people 'on the floor.' This give our ideas grounding. This makes us different from the ‘pair of hands’ agencies. We also need a ‘champion’ higher up in the organization. Without the right support and exposure in the organization, ideas get stuck or risk getting ‘misdirected’ by an inexperienced client. Is this why a lot of frogs are loud, bold and hungry for attention? Marieke Watson, Principal Designer, Seattle
Corporate entities use a centuries old, hierarchy-based military organizational system. It is not conducive to innovation not because it’s ancient, but because in the military what is rewarded is obedience and dependability. Innovation requires irreverence, lateral thinking, surprise and risk. All things that are avoided in military, and by extension in corporate settings. It’s little surprise that there is an innovation gap. The most urgently-needed innovation is a new organizational system for the corporate culture. Without that, innovation will remain elusive. In a certain way, to innovate is to be human. Innovation is part of who we are as a species. But people innovate when a) there is an incentive to do so, b) there’s an environment conducive to being creative, c) there is a certain assurance that one will not be punished for thinking outside of the box. If those factors are not in place, the immediate reaction is to be cautious and go with the “tried-and-true.” Jose Martinez-Salmeron, Associate Creative Director, Austin
There is a gap because a large segment of the Western consumer market isn’t asking companies for innovation. Instead there is movement afoot that rejects adaptation, and instead celebrates status quo or even regression. Their call for “innovation” defies the traditional definition and instead goes from retrograde agrarian musings to things that sound like Alchemy of old. The demands do modestly eschew lead to gold, instead span from resurrecting agricultural practices of the Dark Ages to Weather Control. The result is massive amounts of resources dedicated towards violating the basic laws of physics & thermodynamics through a cadre of centuries old technologies ranging from batteries, to windmills while eschewing younger technologies like nuclear or super-capacitors. Unless of course you are talking about iPhones. Jared Ficklin, Principal Technologist, Austin
"Innovation! One cannot be forever innovating. I want to create classics." Coco Chanel
All design problems (and effectively all problems) are bounded on all sides by a set of constraints and assumptions. The best solution to the problem is the one that best matches the shape of these constraints, while the assumptions are often “false” that only bound the problem in the designer’s mind. What most people don’t realize, however, is that by changing the shape of these constraints, you get a much more dramatic impact on the end design than just iterating on the constraints you were first given… Innovation happens when the constraints and assumptions that surround a design problem are challenged in such a way that the design problem is given new, unique, exciting boundaries. The Razr phone challenged the constraint of internal electronics proportions, resulting in an innovative new slim form factor that is now copied the world over. The Wii challenged the assumption that the only way for new game systems to be successful was to have more processing, faster graphics, higher cost, and instead focused on the constraints present in the way a game is controlled. FedEx challenged the constraint of the economics and structure of government-run mail systems by creating its own parallel system, opening up new markets for shipping and delivery across the world. For every innovation, in an any industry, there was an initial constraint or assumption that was challenged. The trick is not knowing which to challenge…that is an art form and must come later. The initial step, and greatest challenge, is simply understanding what they all are. There is a powerful tool being developed inside of frog called a “Constraints Map” that sorts these crucial criteria by their source and type, which then allows a meaningful dialogue to happen to steer further innovation. Designers, Engineers, Technologists, Strategists, and Program Managers can then use this to change the fundamental definition of the design problem itself, resulting in ideas that would never have been possible given the initial starting conditions. Andy Logan, Principal Designer, San Francisco
I don’t think there is an innovation gap. I think this question is somewhat broad and needs to be answered in the context of industry, or at the company level. I will address both: The industry level: The tech industry has generated unprecedented levels of innovation over the last eight years that have either influenced, redefined, or destroyed almost every other industry. I think part of the problem with how we perceive this decade of invention is that we’ve become acclimated to the wild rate of innovation and therefore have certain perceptions/expectations. Here are a few examples: Cell phones have forever changed the way humans communicate across the globe with over 3.5 billion subscribers worldwide – spreading along with it access to additional communication tools (SMS, MMS, Email, etc). Data access over mobile devices is exploding in the consumer segment and even reaching into 3rd-world countries - providing increased access to valuable information on healthcare, politics, and technology. Console games have advanced to the point of lifelike real-time processing of cloth, materials, people, creatures, and even entire cities enabling highly compelling experiences. Innovative new user interaction models are major selling points for mainstream consumer products including touch (iPhone, HTC Touch, Samsung Armani, LG Vu, MS Surface, HP TouchSmart), speech (MS Sync), accelerometer (Wii, PS3, iPhone, etc) based interaction. Online social networking continues to evolve, changing how we interact, make plans, view ourselves, and view others. These are just a few examples of the explosion in innovation that we’ve seen so far in the 21st century. I think the real question here is: Are consumers ready for even more innovation, and is their appetite truly insatiable? The Company Level: As you know, every company has a very different corporate culture – many try to hire talented people and are smart enough to structure their organization to connect talented people who together are exponentially better prepared and smarter than any single individual. Other companies have entrenched management that are often too afraid to (1) ask tough questions for fear of what they would reveal, (2) be introspective after reaching a moderate level of success, and (3) correctly assess where the organization stands culturally and competitively – and how to groom that culture in a way that breeds excellence, ideas, excitement, innovation, etc. All of this comes together IMO when a company releases a product or service... and the product often reveals that organization's maturity level. What needs to be done to foment a culture of innovation? Innovation comes from management correctly identifying opportunities and executing on them. Their tolerance for risk needs to be higher than normal – the greater the risk, the greater the reward. I think this is why start-ups are often the true innovators – they have far less to lose than a larger organization. Ideas are important and should be highly valued by everyone in the organization. Project leaders should be given complete backing by their organization, but measured against their successes/failures – rewarded for the former, but given the opportunity to learn from the latter in a constructive way. Lower level employees should be given special encouragement and mentorship to grow and improve, mid-level and senior staff should have an ongoing dialog about the value of introspection and an ongoing conversation with the organization about what is - and especially what isn’t - working. What advice would you like to give to companies looking to get traction in the global economy? Your company culture, identify who your talent is and organize them intelligently, learn to correctly identify opportunities/ideas within your organization. Invest in research, recruiting, and infrastructure. Facilitate a culture of creativity. Make it your mission that every one of your employees comes to work excited about what they do – if they aren’t, figure out why and fix it. Adjust and utilize your company's DNA. Adam Ebel, Senior Design Analyst, Seattle
Innovation by design should be a pretext to imagine a better future. A product by itself is not that interesting if it doesn't question "how can we live better and how can we live better together." In a world where radical technology advances are taken for granted, this idea seems more important than ever. Indeed, most issues we face nowadays (education, communication, socialization) are not about technology. They're foremost human-related. Inventing and re-inventing situations where technology serves human experiences is a challenge historically fit for design. David Gauquelin, Designer, Milan, Italy
Innovation is good! Is it? Innovation with direction is more effective. Does innovation also need times of contemplation? Does it always need to be a race? Races frequently end up at the spot where they started. Journeys on the other hand may lead to somewhere beautiful, meaningful. So do we need long term thinking? Maybe with some short bursts in between? A chair is a chair is a chair, right? IP rights, originally awarded to stimulate innovation, have partially become a hindrance. This may be especially painful in the US legal system. Innovation happens mostly in safe, socially stable yet economically liberal environments. That’s a prerequisite. The most innovative region in world (in numbers of patents) is Stuttgart, Germany. What does that mean for frog? It seems that frog offices are generally located in or close to innovation hubs Holger Fricke, Program Manager, Milan, Italy
If things are slowing it may be because the speed of technology is increasing at the same time companies are adopting a people culture. People are the essential ingredients because even if technologies are available the most important thing is to stimulate people to try, risk, prototype to create added value out of those technologies. Promotion of innovation inside the company with “innovation circle/club” can be interesting to increase willing to take risk and go towards innovation. Innovation can derive from the top but even from the lower company level, and even from final users, I think the web 2.0 model where “I create the context, you create the content” is a very innovative way to get and push people/stakeholders to generate innovative ideas. What needs to be done to foment a culture of innovation? Innovation is not the invention but it is essential to invent and has something to do with the work environment more than with the final results. Even if managing well innovation has at the end to generate new products and services able to target emerging or unmet user needs. The compensation for a patent that I’ve seen in some companies in US is another boost for innovation in Europe and more specifically in Italy the culture of patent is finally coming but was not present in the past. Looking outside our own company is another driver for the innovation and in this case I would recommend to work with external team as well, sometimes this may be difficult but in the end there is a lot of value in working with consultants such as us. Essentially, what advice would you like to give to companies looking to get traction in the global economy? In essence innovation is a mentality issue not strictly money or patent related – This mentality is about being able to be flexible and being able to evaluate how new technologies or new process and the way usually adopted could be challenged, changed and improved. To be adaptable and accept positively the new challenge is a stronger position then defending our own established position. A stronger ecosystem made by university, incubators, scientific parks, companies, and technology district to have an ideation and innovation environment able to increase the attitude and innovation mentality. I have been impressed by the active participation of MIT to project development with major companies in US such as 3M, Motorola and others. This ecosystem is developing in Italy as well and I think this will be a generator of further innovation culture. Fabio Scotta, Business Development Director, Milan, Italy
It seems that the more we point out “obstacles to innovation” the more we are walking squarely into the future facing backwards. Innovation isn’t a buzzword – it’s the pointy top end of a massive pyramid of commitment to a vision… sometimes that vision has been around for thousands of years (witness Leonardo’s flying machines) and sometimes it’s an entirely new vision (who would have thought twittering was interesting – can you imagine the pitch – “I’m going to put a text entry box so that people can type in random messages about their context/thoughts/interests etc. and share that with anyone and everyone”…). That said, true innovation seems to come outside of major companies because the work and commitment aren’t clouded by meetings and politics. Within corporate America, innovation is often about figuring out what the keystone that will hold it all together to get it from conception to product is – and this is often different for each company and its particular tribal abnormalities. What we do is allow them to step outside of their myopia of their current context, collaborate the create ideas that we shape into the proper keystone for the particulars of their organization to ensure that they see the light of day. Part of what makes frog special is the unique patchwork quilt of personalities, experiences, offbeat points of view and backgrounds. We’re kind of a collection of people who love to collaboratively dream, share those dreams, AND make those dreams come to life. In today’s era, there is too much of a technology focus when it comes to innovation – beauty, joy, play, nuance...the emotive qualities… what continues to keep us employed is that these basics continue to be the most elusive (and rewarding) “innovations”. Justin Maguire, Creative Director, Seattle
In my humble opinion innovation is everywhere and this “gap” isn’t real. Instead, it’s a perceived gap originating from the exponentially increasing competition to be innovative. It is really hard in today’s world to be innovative in a way that someone else has not and just as difficult to prevent others from replicating our innovations. This is incredibly discouraging and companies need to snap out of it. The truth is if we spend enough time thinking about ways to make anything truly better for people in an unexpected and specific way, we’ve got some kind of innovation. To answer your last question (and this is more tactical), we need to challenge ourselves to be innovative first and then achieve scale second. It makes me laugh that companies stress themselves out over scale when they don’t have “something” to scale. =P Phillip Vasquez, Strategist, San Francisco
I see the global energy crisis as spurring tons of innovation in the US. This is especially true in Silicon Valley with new electric vehicle companies (and all the components and systems necessary such as new battery technology and charging stations), solar companies, utility companies, and start-ups hoping to help manage our future “smart electric grid” system. (Wouldn’t it be fun to work on the UI for that? It could be a convergence project - a residential hardware portal with an actionable UI for monitoring and optimizing your home energy use. There are lots of commercial and industrial opportunities here, too.) But back to the subject: I see the state and federal governments needing to take a role in creating incentives for US Companies and consumers to focus on clean energy use and zero-emissions vehicles development and deployment. Eric Burns, Design Analyst, San Francisco
There is plenty of innovation in the start-up space, but venture capital is slow in softening its demand for hockey-stick growth to more attainable targets. Ideas with merely moderate or good growth potential don't get a shot. In the corporate space, bloat in middle management interferes with innovation. Innovation happens when pockets in organizations are shielded from the effects of this bloat. Symptoms of this situation include: The number of managers exceeds the number of doers. Hierarchies are weak - everybody's opinion is asked for and heard, regardless of qualifications. This is not driven by a sense of democracy, but by complacency. There is no lack of ideas in the corporate space. Outside innovators, like frog, and scores of internal mavericks constantly bombard corporations with visions, concepts and ideas. There even are semi-efficient vetting processes in place. What lacks is the structural rigor that allows proper follow-through. The traditional design response, "this could have been great if the client had their act together", provides no help. Innovation is related to tinkering... at one point, corporations in America found themselves with massive research labs that seemed to contribute little to the bottom line. This was a surprise, since research labs had gained fame in the past... the Manhattan Project, the transistor, the major challenges of the military industrial complex during the cold war, had all been served well by corporate research labs. The situation was fixed by eliminating research, or by busying researchers with implementation tasks. What is the opposite of innovation ? Playing it safe, feeding off somebody else's innovation. Innovation is risky, it does not guarantee success. Innovation means focusing resources on unproven new ideas, instead of harnessing proven, available ideas. Even if returns on old ideas are predictably small, they present a valid choice for organizations that get rewarded for predictable returns. Outsourcing, and the cost-pressure that comes with it, brings challenges: outsourcers are in the business of providing known, proven product types. The general communication- and skill-level challenges that outsourced execution faces work against innovation. Skill levels of graduates entering the professional workforce are a factor of geographical consequence in innovation: American higher education maintains an edge, but is being copied world-wide. Graduate school in the US is dominated by non-American students, who speak better English and who don't have a problem with finishing a paper on time. Visa regulations prevent these students from contributing to the American economy after graduating. K12 education in the US is bogged down by local micromanagement and general disinterest, producing pleasure seekers with unrealized skill sets. From a designer's perspective, innovation is seen in new user interfaces and user-facing features. Innovation is seen as closely connected to execution quality. These types of innovation are fragile, vulnerable. They are easily inhibited by common non-ideal real-world conditions. There actually is plenty of innovation happening, of other kinds. Moore's law and the ways it shapes our world are consequences of innovation. Much of this innovation is actually driven and catalyzed by the factors that are seen as anti-innovation from a designer's perspective. Technology innovation has odd consequences. Computing is on its way from big boxy servers to invisibility, a path taken before, by electrical motors and many other technologies. A current effect of this trajectory is the phletora of gadgets. They look cool to us and command our attention. From a future perspective, they will appear as odd as the car sharkfins of the 1950s. Innovation is oddly dependent on conformity, in the sense that it thrives in standardized environments, on uniform platforms. The dominance of windows provides opportunities for PC hardware- and application software innovation. The lack of a mobile phone network standard in the US keeps the industry busy with maintaining their proprietary systems, binding resources that could be innovating features. User experience design in the US, as an innovative profession, faces a challenge from outsourcing. Skill levels overseas are rising, and the profession faces commoditization. This is already a crisis on the ID side, and software will follow, to a degree, although we have ways to maintain an edge... Disappearance: as computers become invisible, so do software user interfaces as we know them today. Today, industrial designers, with their concern for rounded corners and plastic grilles, look oddly irrelevant from a software designer's perspective. But as computing becomes merely an attribute of everyday objects, this situation will abate or reverse. The software designer's current toolbox of screens, buttons, pop-ups and listboxes disappears with the driving technologies, and design becomes "whole" again. The ability to innovate software-driven features becomes merely an item on any designer's resume. Knut Graf, Principal Designer, Austin
I don’t think there is an innovation gap. There's an execution gap. The US has more than enough cool, innovative, and ground-breaking ideas than anyone knows what to do with (how many projects do we do that never see the light of day?). The challenge is thus not innovation of and in itself, but how that innovation is made real and brought to market. An easier-said-than-done way to help with the execution issue: hire people who aren’t afraid to do so – and this often means starting at the top. Too often execs and managers are part of a larger internal political hierarchy, and either a) unwilling to take risks that might ultimately jeopardize their careers, or b) are within an environment where this is difficult to do That second point is a critical one; in order for innovation execution to happen, the (business) environment has to be set up so as to enable it as much as possible; it’s akin to training Olympic athletes – the best have the best tools and environment to help them be successful, and every aspect of their lives are optimized for that purpose – the same can be said for the most innovative companies Advice to companies – deeply examine, optimize, and think creatively in terms of process in three areas: 1) Ideation, 2) Internal 'enablement,' 3) Go-to-market (manufacturing, distribution, etc.) Good examples: Apple, H&M, Honda Albert Tan, Senior Brand Strategist, San Francisco
Customer experiences with companies do not have a beginning and an end. Experiences, both positive and negative are made up of individual experiences over time, both positive and negative, in fact a customer’s experience with a company’s products and services can begin before a company even knows it in social networking sites, referrals, reviews etc. Although simple, this concept is completely lost in organizations that are pouring tons of capital into individual touchpoints (seo, tv, print, radio, web, in store, out of box experience, actual products) in a siloed manner and are not looking at the end to end experience over time. As services become commoditized, a company’s differentiators will be the ability to provided integrated, or converged customer experiences, defined in the deck as; “Providing customers with personalized, contextually relevant, location and presence based experiences in a consistent and/or complimentary manner across channels and devices.” Presenting this opportunity to companies opens up doors across the entire ecosystem of products and services that require innovative design and strategic and holistic thinking across the entire customer experience. Christian Barnard, Vice President of Global Delivery, Austin
What innovation gap? Aren’t US companies still defining our world? Coke, Apple, Google, McDonald’s, GE, IBM, Nike, VMware, Oracle. Every major world company puts their innovation centers in the US (SAP, Daimler, VW, BMW, Nokia, etc, etc, etc). Look at the title of this other BW article: The U.S. Closes the Mobile Innovation Gap: After lagging in wireless for years, the U.S. has caught up with Western Europe and is now trying to take the innovation lead. Enrich people’s lives and you will get traction in the global economy. Hiten Parmar, Strategy Analyst, San Francisco
I have seen the success of creating an innovation fund. When a previous employer of mine set aside a chunk of money and invited employees to submit proposals for experimental projects, the response was massive. The opportunity to experiment engaged employees and yielded profitable results. Mat Talese, Digital Designer, San Francisco
Innovation is by no means in a lull. There are massive innovations in Cleantech, BioTech, Nanotech. These aren't always consumer facing, but they are big. Jordan Kanarek, Senior Design Analyst, San Francisco
The desire to be innovative is both a personal quality and a corporate/cultural quality. We could argue that Americans have less of the personal quality of innovation in the absence of need (“necessity is the mother of invention”), but I don’t really believe that—and even if that argument has merit, I think it’s beside the point. The real issue from my standpoint is that many corporations have a management structure that is adverse to risk, since they’re being judged on extremely short (typically quarterly) cycles. Needing to make every quarter profitable is not the mindset that drives innovation. A great example of this is Hollywood. Studios are risk-adverse because their leadership will be out of a job after two unprofitable quarters. A video interview that’s on our design mind website has a great quote to the effect that Silicon Valley overestimates what can be done in one year and underestimates what can be done in 10 years. I believe the most innovative management is the management that can afford to take a 10-year view. David Johnson, Principal Technologist, San Francisco