I would like to give you a quick peek into some blog posts by Evan Yares on 
social product innovation that I think are worth sharing, and that bring up a good question. Where will social solutions for engineering and product development actually come from? For those of you that know me, I have been fascinated by the intersection of product innovation and social computing. And if you know me, you probably know that I have some opinions… but let’s start with what Evan has to say. And in the interest of not musing too long, let’s start with his first post which brings up an interesting metaphor for social product development – the humble pencil.
Evan’s Thoughts
First, it is great to see such great work and a refreshing approach. Evan is wicked smart and has a unique way of seeing things (Don’t worry, I blocked Evan’s IP address so this doesn’t go to his head). Evan’s musing on I, pencil really made me think. People have been collaborating on developing products for years. The point from the essay was that no one person knows how to make a pencil. It is the work of many with different skills and purposes (think supply chain, not final production). Evan’s takeaway from it is “How do we give people better tools to help them work together, and make better products?” – which is exactly the point, isn’t it?
Implications for Manufacturers – My Thoughts
My thoughts you ask? You didn’t? Sorry, I will share them anyway. To me, the idea of social product development offers the ability for a supply chain to collaborate in parallel. Perhaps before they are even a supply chain, but more of a collection of capabilities and know-how. As I,pencil points out – not many in the supply chain knew (or cared) about the pencil – they just played their role as a means to their own end. It took someone else to pull all of the pieces together. But what if we get all of the right skills together in a (virtual) room to invent a better pencil? What if the materials experts, the mechanical experts, and those that are looking for a writing solution (and perhaps a marketing visionary to represent voice of the customer as well) shared ideas interactively without filtering in between levels based on what one person thinks is possible or a good idea? To me, that is the promise. Of course there will be lots of very tactical (but important and valuable) uses that simply mimic an engineer walking down the hall to talk to another engineer – but the promise of co-creation and co-innovation is even more exciting! I firmly believe that social computing will expand the possibilities of what humans can invent by connecting more minds and allowing people access to more of the world’s collective knowledge. And now that we have an iPad 2 with a camera, maybe we just do have a better pencil (and paper, and …). But even with a great visionary (thanks Steve Jobs), products like the iPad relied on an innovative supply chain to pull it all together.
So how do we capture this opportunity? Evan’s next post was on the future infrastructure for social product development. I will follow shortly with some thoughts there as well, starting with what Evan has to say. It’s great to have Evan’s voice exploring these topics, we are all better when we share and expand on each other’s ideas.
So that was a quick peek into some recent reflection on social innovation, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. And feel free to join Kalypso and others in the upcoming Spike Summit to hear me share some research on trends in how companies are using social innovation. It should be a great discussion. And I think what you hear will surprise you.
Hello Jim,
I think for most of the Companies they need to use a Private Social Network, because of the IP.
I believe in a Virtual room where all the right skills will come together, but this can only work between cooperation partners. Most of the companies do not allow there employees to discuss issues on a Social network.
regards,
Menk Slot
http://www.plmconsult.nl
Dear Menk,
Thank you for adding that. I do agree that the vast majority of social interaction will be internal. I believe that using social computing to enhance internal collaboration is the easiest thing for companies to adopt because it doesn’t change their business processes (and legal ramifications around intellectual property). Even if this is all that a company uses social computing for, I believe there is significant value in improving the way they share information (and saving the interactions as their own form of product knowledge and IP).
There are companies that have done more. They are opening up new ways to interact with customers and partners. I had the chance to review the entries into the Spike awards and there are some very interesting case studies. They are enabled by technology – but they are also doing business differently. I think more companies will find a way to adopt these approaches (at arm’s length, perhaps). The spikesummit.com event will share some of those stories. That is a smaller percentage of companies – but I think the potential value is higher as well. And to be fair, the risk is higher too.
Even fewer companies will redefine their business (or define a new one). These are the people like Quirky or open source car projects that are doing something fundamentally different. They are pushing the boundaries. Are these the Amazon.com of the future? Will they displace and disrupt the status quo? Most of them won’t. But for those that do, the prize is much higher!
So I guess what it comes down to is business strategy. If a company has a cautious strategy they can get value out of social computing. If they are aggressive and willing to shake things up – both risk and potential reward go up. Either way, the technology is a new enabler that can help them realize the strategy.
Thanks for your thoughts, and I hope you can attend the conference to share what you are seeing in your client base.
Jim
Menk/Jim – I was involved with a project developeing novel IP that made use of collaborative virtual networks between multiple parties, crowdsourcing before crowdsourcing had been named :o) so it can be done. Significant legal work done before hand. What is interesting is the capacity of this type of collaberation, and the appetite, to embrace non traditional models, and importantly develop disruptive business models. Don Taspscott pointed thsi up at teh micro level and is demonstrating its wider implications now. The more the collaborative ethic is reinvigirated by the technical platforms the more common thsi is set to become, and new IP models (or at least revenue models) will emerge to accomodate it.
Rgds
Tim
Hello Jim,
I think for most of the Companies they need to use a Private Social Network, because of the IP.
I believe in a Virtual room where all the right skills will come together, but this can only work between cooperation partners. Most of the companies do not allow there employees to discuss issues on a Social network.
regards,
Menk Slot
http://www.plmconsult.nl
Dear Menk,
Thank you for adding that. I do agree that the vast majority of social interaction will be internal. I believe that using social computing to enhance internal collaboration is the easiest thing for companies to adopt because it doesn’t change their business processes (and legal ramifications around intellectual property). Even if this is all that a company uses social computing for, I believe there is significant value in improving the way they share information (and saving the interactions as their own form of product knowledge and IP).
There are companies that have done more. They are opening up new ways to interact with customers and partners. I had the chance to review the entries into the Spike awards and there are some very interesting case studies. They are enabled by technology – but they are also doing business differently. I think more companies will find a way to adopt these approaches (at arm’s length, perhaps). The spikesummit.com event will share some of those stories. That is a smaller percentage of companies – but I think the potential value is higher as well. And to be fair, the risk is higher too.
Even fewer companies will redefine their business (or define a new one). These are the people like Quirky or open source car projects that are doing something fundamentally different. They are pushing the boundaries. Are these the Amazon.com of the future? Will they displace and disrupt the status quo? Most of them won’t. But for those that do, the prize is much higher!
So I guess what it comes down to is business strategy. If a company has a cautious strategy they can get value out of social computing. If they are aggressive and willing to shake things up – both risk and potential reward go up. Either way, the technology is a new enabler that can help them realize the strategy.
Thanks for your thoughts, and I hope you can attend the conference to share what you are seeing in your client base.
Jim
Menk/Jim – I was involved with a project developeing novel IP that made use of collaborative virtual networks between multiple parties, crowdsourcing before crowdsourcing had been named :o) so it can be done. Significant legal work done before hand. What is interesting is the capacity of this type of collaberation, and the appetite, to embrace non traditional models, and importantly develop disruptive business models. Don Taspscott pointed thsi up at teh micro level and is demonstrating its wider implications now. The more the collaborative ethic is reinvigirated by the technical platforms the more common thsi is set to become, and new IP models (or at least revenue models) will emerge to accomodate it.
Rgds
Tim
Products have always been developed socially. Only now we are seeing it as such. The Internet is reducing the barriers and making more connections – opening up more possibilities. But no magic is happening as a result of this. Connections and trade is facilitated and new markets are opened up. So it is driven by new efficiencies but product typologies remain as before – with higher levels of customization.
its only new design tools and manufacturing technologies that can make a significant difference as it reduces barriers to entry and allow people who have not been able to participate in product developmen before to participate in creating exciting possibilities.
I think that generative design technology will help drastically reduce the barrier of entry for social product authoring, as it has the frame work to handle varaibility and limits. I have discussed this in :http://generativedesign.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/why-co-creation-and-mass-customisation-will-rely-on-genetic-modelling/
While I agree that products have been developed socially (product development is a team sport, after all), I don’t think you are giving the trend to use social computing in product innovation and product development enough credit. What I have seen is that the pace and breadth of product innovation can be drastically changed with social computing. Experts from around the world and across company boundaries can contribute to designs. There is a real difference in business practices here (trusting ideas from the outside) that is very different, and one that I have hear companies like P&G talk very highly about.
In addition to new business practices, the technology allows companies to reach out to (and find, perhaps most importantly) to experts and/or large groups of customers to get input and feedback. Trying to do this before technology resulted in much slower, more expensive processes like focus groups.
Don’t discount the changes that are happening from social technology, I believe that is a mistake. I will respond to your blog post separately, because while I (respectfully) don’t agree with your view that there is no magic to social computing. Companies are developing better products, and products customers want.
Thanks for commenting (and please see next reply),
Jim
My second thought is on your genetic modeling concept. There is a big difference between models to interact with customers for “customized” products:
– Assemble to Order – This is(what the PC makers do, where they have already determined what they will sell and just let the customer find their way to it. Nobody is really creating a Dell laptop that Dell didn’t preconceive as a valid combination
– Make to Order – This is what door and window companies do, or industrial equipment manufacturers for that matter. They put forward rules (as you discuss in your blog) that provide boundaries and constraints to what they will sell. Some of that is based on what they can manufacture (what is possible to make) and some of it is based on what they want to manufacturer (what is profitable and beneficial to them to make).
– Engineer to Order – This is what jobshops do, the true “custom” products. Maybe they start with a base design, but then the possibilities can be explored broadly from there. This is more based on capabilities than rules. Parametric CAD can be a part of the answer, but that also leaves you looking through ideas that are relatively pre-conceived. They are just another form of rules. Truly exploring the design space is a different story.
So what do I think consumers want to do in social product development? It depends on the product and the consumer, but:
– Most consumers don’t want to design a product. They want to tell someone that knows how to do it what they need – and get a designer/engineer to show them possibilities. Then, they want to give feedback to iterate to a product they like. Most consumers really don’t want to design a product, or have the skillset to do it.
– There are others, particularly in business to business, where I see a real desire to explore what suppliers can offer. Here, though, I have seen many suppliers saying they want to explore the design space themselves as opposed to letting customers do that freely. That way, they can decide what to sell (and hopefully get some economy of scale by reusing the resulting intellectual property to other customers).
The issue is who is doing product management? I love the idea that manufacturers would make anything, but the art and science of taking in requirements and assembling product solutions that are profitable can’t be ignored.
So is there a designer in all of us? And do we really want to design our own products? I am going to say mostly “no.” The majority want to influence. For the minority that are the others, there are some great social sites like Quirky and others that offer up an ability for them to design something they want and then have it manufactured (should it be wanted by enough people to make it profitable).
So do we agree or disagree in more places? I like the direction you are going, but wonder whether the toolset is more suited to internally exploring the design/capability space than putting that in the hands of consumers. Maybe you can provide some examples?
Thanks,
Jim
Jim,
I think that we agree more than we disagree. There is so much of hype about consumers creating everything- its unbelievable. I agree with you that 99.9% don’t. But there is a 0.1% of lead users who make a big difference and it is worthwhile engaging them. Prof Von Hippel’s work points to this. But I don’t think that many have connected the .1% to the 99.9%. These are two separate and independent processors and are disconnected. The market currently is only for the 99.9%, which requires some level of customization.
As markets saturate companies wish to get into every new niches through product diversification. For a long time companies have tried to push their internal processes using the most cumbersome methodologies. The trick is as I have pointed out in my blog – to throw open their manufacturing capabilities. This can be done if products are represented at in virtual form within constrain envelopes that can be based on manufacturing, cost and performance limit.
What I am proposing has not yet been done. What you say about a suppliers wanting to explore design space is interesting. It will possibly happen the first. It will certainly happen in architecture, where skilled architects and push my faction was to churn out what they want. Currently through dialogue and consultation. Genetic modelling will make it possible for them to do what they now do more efficiently.
Sivam,
Thanks for clarifying, I understand your perspective a bit more now. I absolutely agree that there are some opportunities for this, but it will not be the mainstream. Your example of architecture is a great one, because you have a creative mind with design skills trying to work determine what is possible. Giving them that capability to explore possibilities is something I can picture much more readily. Do you think that in most cases that would still be done in collaboration with someone from the manufacturing side?
Now that I understand the intent, I will re-read your blog to understand more about tools and techniques to accomplish this. Do you feel that they are mature enough to implement this strategy today?
Thanks again for clarifying,
Jim
Products have always been developed socially. Only now we are seeing it as such. The Internet is reducing the barriers and making more connections – opening up more possibilities. But no magic is happening as a result of this. Connections and trade is facilitated and new markets are opened up. So it is driven by new efficiencies but product typologies remain as before – with higher levels of customization.
its only new design tools and manufacturing technologies that can make a significant difference as it reduces barriers to entry and allow people who have not been able to participate in product developmen before to participate in creating exciting possibilities.
I think that generative design technology will help drastically reduce the barrier of entry for social product authoring, as it has the frame work to handle varaibility and limits. I have discussed this in :http://generativedesign.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/why-co-creation-and-mass-customisation-will-rely-on-genetic-modelling/
While I agree that products have been developed socially (product development is a team sport, after all), I don’t think you are giving the trend to use social computing in product innovation and product development enough credit. What I have seen is that the pace and breadth of product innovation can be drastically changed with social computing. Experts from around the world and across company boundaries can contribute to designs. There is a real difference in business practices here (trusting ideas from the outside) that is very different, and one that I have hear companies like P&G talk very highly about.
In addition to new business practices, the technology allows companies to reach out to (and find, perhaps most importantly) to experts and/or large groups of customers to get input and feedback. Trying to do this before technology resulted in much slower, more expensive processes like focus groups.
Don’t discount the changes that are happening from social technology, I believe that is a mistake. I will respond to your blog post separately, because while I (respectfully) don’t agree with your view that there is no magic to social computing. Companies are developing better products, and products customers want.
Thanks for commenting (and please see next reply),
Jim
My second thought is on your genetic modeling concept. There is a big difference between models to interact with customers for “customized” products:
– Assemble to Order – This is(what the PC makers do, where they have already determined what they will sell and just let the customer find their way to it. Nobody is really creating a Dell laptop that Dell didn’t preconceive as a valid combination
– Make to Order – This is what door and window companies do, or industrial equipment manufacturers for that matter. They put forward rules (as you discuss in your blog) that provide boundaries and constraints to what they will sell. Some of that is based on what they can manufacture (what is possible to make) and some of it is based on what they want to manufacturer (what is profitable and beneficial to them to make).
– Engineer to Order – This is what jobshops do, the true “custom” products. Maybe they start with a base design, but then the possibilities can be explored broadly from there. This is more based on capabilities than rules. Parametric CAD can be a part of the answer, but that also leaves you looking through ideas that are relatively pre-conceived. They are just another form of rules. Truly exploring the design space is a different story.
So what do I think consumers want to do in social product development? It depends on the product and the consumer, but:
– Most consumers don’t want to design a product. They want to tell someone that knows how to do it what they need – and get a designer/engineer to show them possibilities. Then, they want to give feedback to iterate to a product they like. Most consumers really don’t want to design a product, or have the skillset to do it.
– There are others, particularly in business to business, where I see a real desire to explore what suppliers can offer. Here, though, I have seen many suppliers saying they want to explore the design space themselves as opposed to letting customers do that freely. That way, they can decide what to sell (and hopefully get some economy of scale by reusing the resulting intellectual property to other customers).
The issue is who is doing product management? I love the idea that manufacturers would make anything, but the art and science of taking in requirements and assembling product solutions that are profitable can’t be ignored.
So is there a designer in all of us? And do we really want to design our own products? I am going to say mostly “no.” The majority want to influence. For the minority that are the others, there are some great social sites like Quirky and others that offer up an ability for them to design something they want and then have it manufactured (should it be wanted by enough people to make it profitable).
So do we agree or disagree in more places? I like the direction you are going, but wonder whether the toolset is more suited to internally exploring the design/capability space than putting that in the hands of consumers. Maybe you can provide some examples?
Thanks,
Jim
Jim,
I think that we agree more than we disagree. There is so much of hype about consumers creating everything- its unbelievable. I agree with you that 99.9% don’t. But there is a 0.1% of lead users who make a big difference and it is worthwhile engaging them. Prof Von Hippel’s work points to this. But I don’t think that many have connected the .1% to the 99.9%. These are two separate and independent processors and are disconnected. The market currently is only for the 99.9%, which requires some level of customization.
As markets saturate companies wish to get into every new niches through product diversification. For a long time companies have tried to push their internal processes using the most cumbersome methodologies. The trick is as I have pointed out in my blog – to throw open their manufacturing capabilities. This can be done if products are represented at in virtual form within constrain envelopes that can be based on manufacturing, cost and performance limit.
What I am proposing has not yet been done. What you say about a suppliers wanting to explore design space is interesting. It will possibly happen the first. It will certainly happen in architecture, where skilled architects and push my faction was to churn out what they want. Currently through dialogue and consultation. Genetic modelling will make it possible for them to do what they now do more efficiently.
Sivam,
Thanks for clarifying, I understand your perspective a bit more now. I absolutely agree that there are some opportunities for this, but it will not be the mainstream. Your example of architecture is a great one, because you have a creative mind with design skills trying to work determine what is possible. Giving them that capability to explore possibilities is something I can picture much more readily. Do you think that in most cases that would still be done in collaboration with someone from the manufacturing side?
Now that I understand the intent, I will re-read your blog to understand more about tools and techniques to accomplish this. Do you feel that they are mature enough to implement this strategy today?
Thanks again for clarifying,
Jim