The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction: Disruptive Innovation

“Knowledge wants to be Free” – this is the fundamental idea behind the Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, a free online portal started by Mads Soegaard with the goal to provide free access to materials written by the world’s foremost authorities – worth thousands of dollars – whether you are from New York or New Delhi.

The site features already 18 chapters incl. HD videos ranging from Interaction Design, User Experience and Experience Design, End-User Development and Open User Innovation. Now the extraordinary feature of this site is that this content is not just summarized by an editor, but instead written by the leading experts in this field. Just as an example, the chapter on Open User Innovation is written by Eric von Hippel, the inventor behind the concepts of lead user research and innovation.

New chapters are published regularly and the next chapter will be released at the end of February 2012. Clayton Christensen, Harvard Professor, NYT best-selling author of the books “The Innovators Dilemma” and “The Innovators Solution” and one of the forerunners of the concept of disruptive innovation is sharing the models and ideas behind his work.

Get early access to the next chapter

As a reader of this blog you can have earlier access to the content on the website. The new chapter introduces the Disruptive Innovation Model that is the underlying model of Christensen’s work. Just folio the link to the chapter on  Disruptive Innovation.

The Zero Moment of Truth: A Free Ebook by Google

Moments of truth make or break a customer’s experience. These critical moments when a customer interacts with a brand are the foundation for understanding and improving the customer experience.

To improve the customer experience it is necessary to understand where the first moment of truth happens.  In retail environments, the first moment of truth happened when a customer interacts with a product on the shelf, the second moment of truth happens when the customer actually uses and experiences a product.

Consumer Behavior is changing, consumers are now using smartphones and other devices to evaluate products and service right at the moment when they are buying the product. This introduces a new category of touch points and moments of truth – the so-called zero moments of truth.

DuckDuckGo and the opportunity of a better search experience

Google has become the dominant search engine not just because it provided the best search but also because it was able to offer a superior search experience. The user interface element that represented this best was the minimalist search box on the Google homepage. The idea that the best search engine makes users leave the site as fast as possible (because they have found the right result) is very powerful but it seems that that over the years this idea has become less important to Google.

To be fair, Google is dealing with several challenges such as search-engine optimization (SEO) spam, the demand for neutrality when listing search results (that’s why it is hard to just remove spam site from the index), the integration of new products  into search (i.e. Google Maps, Google Image Search, Google News) as well as the concept of tailoring search results based on a users social graph.

The problems with personalized search results

All of these changes lead to one outcome: It becomes very difficult to predict the outcome of a search on Google. If you are – like in my situation – using Google when your native language is German, your location is in Switzerland and you are searching for the term “customer experience” it becomes very difficult to predict what results you will get. Depending on wether you are on google.ch in German, google.ch in English or google.com the results will be different. If you are signed in into your Google account, the results will be different again. If you are using multiple Google accounts (I have four Google accounts, 3 of them I use every day) the results will vary as well because your social graph is different.

Filter Bubbles and User Tracking

This phenomenon is called the “filter bubble” and describes the challenge when search results are filtered based on your specific profile. Let’s say you are searching for Barack Obama and your social graph is dominated by friends who are in favour of Obama. Your search results might be dominated by sites that are in favour of Obama as well. If on the other hand your social graph is dominated by friends who are not in favour of Barack Obama, the search results might reflect this. Ultimately this will lead to a situation where we are receiving more of the same content and views that are outside our perspectives or don’t fit into our social graph are filtered out.

Another development of internet search is that search engines track all of your search terms and forward them to the sites that you visit afterwards. This would not be a problem in itself but since most people now have a Google account as well Google knows exactly if you are searching for a new job, trying to find a cure for a hangover or planning a vacation in Spain.

The opportunity for a better search experience

Some entrepreneurs have seen this trend a while ago and have developed a new approach towards internet search. One search engine that is an answer to the filter-bubble and user-tracking is DuckDuckGo, a new and improved search engine that aims to deliver a search experience that gives users more instant answers, less clutter and spam and real privacy. Started by own guy it has grown significantly and recently passed 1 million searches a day.

DuckDuckGo takes a new approach and brings several improvements over the new and “optimized” Google search. Time will tell if DDG will gain enough traction to become a serious challenge to Google and other search engines. DuckDuckGo is not perfect as well, but it is a innovative player in the field of search that is – compared to other new entrants (anyone remember Cuil?) –  gaining traction and might become an relevant player. But even if the presence of DuckDuckgo only brings back a “neutral” search mode to Google – a mode that allows users to perform a search without filtering results based on geography, language or other aspects it would be an important feature to keep

Dieter Rams, Ten Principles for Good Design and a Black Cube

Dieter Rams is a German industrial designer that has worked closely with Braun to design products that have become iconic. The core principle of his designs is “Less, but better” which lead to many memorable products.

Less, but better

This design philosophy can also be observed when looking at Apple products and it turns out that many Apple products are strikingly similar to designs from Dieter Rams while working at Braun (Image via dnaadvertising).

Ten Principles of Good Design

As an extension of his physical creations, Dieter Rams defined ten principles of good design. According to these principles, good design 

• Is innovative - The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.

• Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.

• Is aesthetic - The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.

• Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user’s intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.

• Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression.

• Is honest - It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.

• Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today’s throwaway society.

• Is thorough down to the last detail - Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.

• Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.

• Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

Is perfectionism the #1 innovation killer?

A recent article in BusinessWeek discusses the benefits of selling early-stage, imperfect products to increase the success rate of innovation products.

If you had tasted the very first PowerBar, you probably would have gagged.

It was a chewy, tasteless mass of goo: barley malt, nuts, brown rice, molasses, and nutrients blended into a taffy-like bar, packed in a metallic wrapper with a crude logo.

Created by Brian Maxwell in 1986 for a few thousand dollars, PowerBar received mixed initial results. Serious athletes liked it because it met an important need—quick energy during competition—but the taste and consistency needed work.

Maxwell knew his product wasn’t optimal. But by getting feedback on an early version, he was able to modify it, changing the package and marketing strategy to build a following among athletes and weekend warriors.

The idea that it is beneficial to test products with customers as early as possible is not necessarily new. The challenge is that this common sense idea is very hard to implement because it turns out that in many organisations the willingness to experiment and learn from products or services that are not yet perfected is frowned upon.

An additional challenge is that the departments running the daily operations have no incentive to focus on developing the next innovation that will replace their existing products.

An early-stage PowerBar would never get out the door: R&D would want a better formula; packaging would need a more elaborate wrapper; a design agency would have to create the right label; manufacturing and sales would have to weigh in; and the corporate lawyers would insist on a detailed risk analysis.

In order to innovative a team needs to be willing to experiment and learn from early prototypes and customer feedback. Keep that in mind the next time somebody presents a rough PowerPoint or a cardboard prototype.

Building better products: Are the best products created without a specification?

Following established best practices, having a detailed specification is necessary to build and design a new product or service. Theoretically, the specification is written in a form so that it can easily be handed over to “implementers” who will deliver the specified product. Realistically it never quite works out like that.

Creating a specification is a cumbersome process and takes a lot of iterations between multiple parties. Once everybody has agreed on the specification the implementation teams has a clearly defined goal and starts to work. It turns out that in this step the attitude of the implementation team changes and too often follows the economic minimalist principle.

The economic minimization principle

The implementation team has a clear economic incentive: deliver outcomes according to the specification and do this with the minimum effort. If you have a committed team they might put in the extra effort to under-promise and over-deliver, but there is no direct economic incentive to deliver more than what has been specified.

This way of cooperation is the preferred approach for most development and outsourcing projects. Nevertheless I was wondering if this approach is really suitable if we are aiming for breakthrough products and services. Are the situations when it is good that we let go of a strict specification? How do we need to change our design processes to create breakthrough products that not just meet but actually exceed a pre-defined specification?

The economic maximization principle

Working without a clear specification forces a development team to follow the economic maximum principle: Given set of resources aim to achieve the maximum outcome and deliver as much functionality as possible. This way you can focus on actually implementing the necessary requirements instead of negotiating the scope of the requirements that need to be implemented.

Obviously such an approach needs to incorporate agile principles and a leadership approach that is allows a team of highly motivated and talented individuals to perform at their best. Nevertheless one challenge remains: How can you ensure what the team should ultimately developed?

A product vision can compensate the absence of a specification

In the absence of a specification it is still necessary to define the direction the team should follow to implement a new product or service. Therefore the communication of the product vision becomes an increasingly important task with the product managers goal being that they ensure that the team has completely grasped the product vision.

Limits of this approach: When specifications are necessary

Obviously there are limits to this approach. If you are working on medical products or life-critical software applications, if you are replacing a legacy financial trading platform or if you are planning to outsource a multi-million dollar project it is necessary – also from a legal perspective – to ensure that there exists a document that describes the scope of the product. Nobody wants to be surprised by unexpected software bugs in the autopilot during mid-flight.

But I get the impression that if you are working on a breakthrough product or on a new innovation with a team that is able and winning to push the boundaries of what is possible, then I guess the results might be better, if you just drop any specification you might have and instead focus on a strong vision that allows the team to deliver on this dimension.

What is your experience with this approach? Will substituting a product specification with a clear product vision lead to better breakthrough innovations?

Guest post: Innovative organizations: playing to win vs. playing not to lose

Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Sushi Suzuki, concept developer for Panasonic in Germany. Previously, he founded d.thinking Ponts ParisTech while teaching design innovation at École des Ponts ParisTech he was  the Executive Director of the ME310 program at Stanford University.

Over the last few years, I’ve had the pleasure of hosting many design thinking workshops and short courses in various contexts around the world. The format and content for the workshops and short courses are similar (1~3 days, team project based), but there is one large contextual difference in that participants in workshops are not graded while students in short courses are.

I am a firm believer in learning by doing, and as such, in my workshops and courses, participants and students work on various innovation challenges to practice their observation, synthesis, and ideation skills. Recently, I’ve come to the realization that the project results from the workshops tended to be more wild, creative, and challenging while project results from the courses tended to be more conservative, incremental, and at times pedestrian. While it’s difficult to judge results from such a short project, I find the results from the workshops to be more interesting and innovative even if unrefined and seemingly unrealistic. If I was trying to achieve some breakthrough innovation, the workshop results would be a much better starting point in my opinion. It’s easier to make a wild idea more realistic than to make a conservative idea more innovative.

Playing to win vs. playing not to lose

Ichiro, the Japanese baseball player, once commented that in the US, players played to win while in Japan, players played not to lose. I think the same dynamic is in effect here. Students in courses are afraid to be wrong (even if there aren’t any right or wrongs in my courses) and as such, they present more conservative ideas out of fear that the wilder ideas may seem unrealistic. Workshop participants on the other hand are freer from repercussions and as a result, they can be more imaginative and challenging.

Extending this out to the real world, there are some implications that need to be considered in trying to design innovative organizations and executing innovation initiatives. If people have the fear of failure because their wellbeing is closely linked to the results of the project or initiative, it will undoubtedly force them to be more conservative most likely leading to uninteresting results. Some companies have taken note of this and have tried to minimize the fear of failure from their employees. W. L. Gore and Associates has been known to celebrate project cancellations to send a message that because something didn’t work out, it’s not necessarily a failure.

While such initiatives are commendable, there can be difficulties in implementing something like this where the fear of failure is not only part of the corporate culture, it’s part of the national culture such as in my home country of Japan or my adopted country Germany.

An alternative approach to disconnecting fear from failure could be to take the innovation challenges beyond the corporate walls to outside institutions whose responsibilities and dependencies are inherently limited. I believe that one of the many advantages of design and innovation consultancies is that their success is partially disconnected from their clients’. While successful projects could mean more business in the future, failures won’t damage the consultant or consultancy in the same way an employee or manager could be damaged. That with more procedural freedom is a great recipe for innovative work.

Another place to take innovation initiatives is academia. While there are many projects unfit for students due to the technological complexity or confidentiality issues, as long as the students’ grades aren’t too directly linked to client satisfaction, they can be a lot more flexible and imaginative than hand-cuffed employees.

I’m not advocating the complete abandonment of accountability and responsibility, but there are times when such things could be obstructions in trying to accomplish innovative work. Like with everything else in the company, organization structure, work processes, and motivation schemes need to be designed to fit the task at hand.

About Sushi Suzuki

Innovating with improvised user behavior

Chris Dixon, co-founder and CEO of recently acquired Hunch, reminds us about the potential of improvised user behavior to create new products and services.

For a long time, there were niche communities of “lo-fi” camera enthusiasts: people who shared photos taken on old cameras that had interesting ways of filtering shots. The iPhone app Hipstamatic popularized lo-fi filters, selling over 1M copies. Because Hipstamatic lacked sharing features, many users took pictures with Hipstamatic and then shared them using other apps. Then came Instagram, which combined lo-fi filters and easy sharing. Instagram has been downloaded 15M times and has apparently crossed over to mainstream users.

Instagram built a product devoted to a job that users were previously performing improvisationally using multiple products. This is a common pattern for popular software and services. Before Twitter, people shared interesting links through email or “link round-up” blog posts. Tumblr’s short-form blogging/re-blogging was inspired by an “unintended” use of long-form blogging platforms like WordPress. Before Foursquare, power socializers sent out mass text messages with their locations (in fact, Foursquare’s predecessor Dodgeball did exactly that).

This idea has been discussed in-depth by Eric van Hippel who developed the so-called lead user method (PDF)  to identify opportunities for new products and services.

The creative process is complex, that’s why innovation is so hard.

Innovation is hard. Just look at Research in Motion (the makers of BlackBerry) or Nokia who have been praised as the leaders and innovators in their field and who are struggling to come up with products and services to compete in the changing mobile landscape.

I stumbled upon this infographic, which does not contain any concrete information but instead gives an artistic, visual impression of the creative process. There are two ways to react to this graphic and I think they can teach us a lot how we see innovation.

Reaction 1: Embracing the chaos for more creativity

If your first reaction to this image is to agree with this visual representation of the creative process and that it is a complex, unstructured process that may or may not lead to innovations you probably have experienced these moments when somebody, somehow has a breakthrough moment where everybody just knew that this idea will lead to a breakthrough.

It is very hard to plan for these moments and the fundamental truth remains: You can’t force humans to think faster or creatively. You just have to manage to create a process that allows these ideas to emerge. Nevertheless a complete lack of structure without any constraints will never lead to any results either.

Reaction 2: Structuring the chaos for more creativity

If you look at that image and say “What’s that? Just some painting – this needs to get structured!” you have probably experienced the benefits of structuring and clearly defining processes to achieve the best results. Academic research has shown correctly that structuring processes has lead to better quality, predictability and ultimately efficiency and efficacy.

Removing these processes will not necessarily lead to an improvement because planning for “Heureka” moments of inspiration and insights is impossible because they have to come from within the individuals that are engaged in this process and cannot be forced upon them.

Is there a solution?

So the ultimate question is: Is there a solution to this challenge of structuring the chaos while at the same time embracing the necessary freedom to let chaos emerge? The answer is: There are solutions, but there is not one single recipe that could be applied in a recipe-like style. From my personal experience it depends just so much on the corporate culture and I am thinking of using this image in the future to get a better grasp how companies see the creativity and innovation challenge by asking them: If you look at this picture, would you rather embrace the chaos or structure the chaos to develop breakthrough innovations.