Design & Innovation

Last night, I met my friends for dinner at a restaurant in Chinatown.  As soon as we sat down, one of my friends pulled out this cloth that held a metal item.  It was round and had a design on it and when she opened it up, it had a hook at the end.  As I almost blurted out, “What’s wrong with your eyes?  You need glasses to read a menu now?  You are my age!  We aren’t that old yet!”, she placed the metal round item on the table and hooked her purse onto it.  I was shocked, so I asked her what it was.  She told me that it was a purse holder and that she found it and ordered it online and there are so many different colors and designs.  It was the coolest gadget that I have ever seen!  I wanted one for myself!  The person who designed that is a genius!  I always hated putting my purse on my lap because it is so uncomfortable when I’m eating.  But, I also refuse to put it on the dirty floor at the restaurant.  So, this gadget is perfect for my purse!  So, today, I started looking for them online. http://www.delight.com/Luxe-Link-Purse-Holder

 http://www.myweddingfavors.com/handbag-caddy-purse-holder.html

As I searched online for a nice one, I began to think to myself.  I have only one fear about using one of these.  I am afraid that when I initially start to use it, then I will forget that my purse is on the hook on the table, because I am not used to it.  At least, when it was on my lap, I can feel it.  Even if I forget that the purse is on my lap and I get up, it falls to the floor and it makes a noise to remind me to take it.  If I get one of these, then someone has to design something to remind me that I left my purse on a hook at the table!

With so many indoor air filters floating in the market, here’s a fresh new concept of improving our indoor environment quality - Using plants as the filtration core to purify the indoor air of toxins, which are not captured by the average air filter. The Bel Air living air filter was conceptualized by French designer Mathieu LeHanneur in collaboration with David Edwards of Harvard University.

The design is based on an old NASA research on plants that absorb chemicals through their leaves and roots. Astronauts living on re-cycled and re-circulated air in space modules were found to have high levels of volatile organic compounds in their bodies. This prompted NASA to research on using plants to keep re-circulated air inside the space modules healthy. The findings have shown that plants that include gerbera, philodendron, spathiophyllum, pathos, and chlorophytum were very effective in purification of air from toxins.

The filter works by drawing polluted air into a pyrex pod through a fan. The pod houses a potted plant of the kind mentioned above. The air is forced around its leaves, roots (through the soil) and humidity(through a tray of water underneath the soil) before being released back out. Although indoor plants do help in purifying the air, this device is much more efficient and accelerates the whole process. As a bonus, the device is designed to look aesthetically appealing and thereby improving the indoor décor.

You can read more about it on

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-05/living-air-filter

I am currently taking an HR class during Summer 1, called “Power, Influence and Negotiations” with Dr. Hochner.  This is a very interesting class that teaches us about negotiations and how the power in our relationships with other people (business, boss, colleague, subordinates, etc…)  shifts from person to person at any point in time depending what we have that other people want or need and depending on what other people have that we want or need.  Dr. Hochner also teaches us how we can increase our negotiating power by improving our BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) . 

One of the articles we are reading teaches us how to prepare for negotiations.  The author, William Ury, explains that not only do we need to figure out our own interests in a particular negotiation (what do we want from this negotiation?) , but we also need to figure out what the other person’s (whom we are bargaining with) interests are (what do they want?).  He says that the purpose of identifying each side’s interest is to see if we can devise a “creative option” to satisfy both of our requirements and that inventing options for mutual gain is a negotiator’s single greatest opportunity.  He goes on by explaining that a common mistake that people make is to dwell on a single solution (original position).  But if we open ourselves up to many other possible solutions, we may generate new possibilities that may meet our interests while also satisfying the other side’s.  Ury also explains that the biggest obstacle in the way of generating creative ideas is saying, “That won’t work!”.  Criticism and evalution interferes with imagination.  He says to invent first, evaluate later and suspend judgement for a few minutes and try to come up with as many ideas as possible even if they seem like wild ones (many of the best ideas in the world started out as wild ideas everyone disparaged) and after brainstorming all of the options, choose the best one that satisfies both sides’ interests. 

This part of the article immediately peaked my interest, because I really didn’t expect negotiations to be very creative at all or I would have never thought of linking negotiations and ”creativity” or “design” together.  These are all common themes (not having a final end solution in mind because it limits creativity; don’t judge first, invent first and evaluate later; come up with many ideas even wild ones) that we have learned all throughout our Design and Innovation class trip from all of the companies that we have visited and here it is again showing us how negotiators use similar tactics/processes (as designers) while preparing for negotiations.

This past Monday (Memorial Day), I went to my cousin’s house in Deptford, NJ for a BBQ.  I must admit that I got lost because I don’t know the roads very well in New Jersey and I was kind of pissed because I was extremely confused with NJ’s roads.  How come there are jug handles at some intersections but then others, I can make a left turn from a left lane?  This is very confusing for out of state drivers and that’s how accidents happen. 

This made me wonder wonder who designed the roadways and what the designer was thinking when he decided to design the roads with a mixture of jug handles and left turn lanes in only one state.  Was it to make it more innovative and look different from other states?  Or did he/she think that it looks cool?

This also reminded me of the time when I was working in Dallas, TX for my client, Verizon.  Right outside Verizon’s office was a four lane highway/road that looks pretty similar to Roosevelt Boulevard (Route 1 North and South in Northeast Philadelphia) except that it had no traffic lights and no stop signs.  Just like Roosevelt Blvd, it had two lanes going northbound and two going southbound except that they called the outer lanes, “service lanes”, and inner lanes the main roadway/highway.  So, if you are on the rightmost service lane and you are trying to make a left turn to go all the way across the intersection, you’d have to “frog hop” across the highway because there are no traffic lights there.  When I first drove around there, I freaked out and my heartbeat was really fast every time I tried to “frog hop” across that road.  Whoever designed that road with no traffic lights is absolutely crazy!  I really wonder what that designer was thinking.  Did he/she want to see how many accidents can happen?  That really isn’t the smartest design for a road especially for out of state visitors.

A common theme among all of the companies we’ve visited all mentioned that focus groups do not work anymore because people will not be honest with their thoughts on the products.  In IDEO’s book, Tom Kelley gave an example that inexperienced computer users may not be able to explain that their website lacks navigational clues.  People had a hard time using a system but yet, during their exit interviews, they swore that they had no trouble with the application and cannot think of a single improvement.

I think this is because people do not want to seem as if they are not smart people since they do not know how to use a software system or computer.  On the other hand, having worked (and am still working) in the IT industry as a software developer, I have seen many developers or consultants who do think that the customers/clients are “stupid” because they don’t know how to use the system.  There’s a saying, “The problem is between the keyboard and the chair.” — meaning that the problem is with the “user”.  Even I admit that I’ve been guilty of saying this myself about certain users once or twice and/or made fun of my sisters who don’t know how to use a computer.  So, I guess I don’t blame people for not wanting to be honest and admit that the system sucks during focus groups for IT softwares.

During our meeting at Desimone’s on Day 4 of our design tour, Marco mentioned that he was a little bored with Frank Gehry’s designs because after awhile they all look very similar. He also mentioned that in LA, neigbhors complained about the heat reflecting from his building and sued but they didn’t complain that the building increased the area’s value of their homes.

At that time, I was thinking about the design and trends of buildings and compared them to the designs and trends in clothing. Certain clothing may be trendy and in style at a point in time. At the time, we love the outfit and wear it all of the time. However, as years go by and more often that not, we look at old pictures and thought to ourselves, “Eww! That is the most ugliest outfit! What in the world was I thinking? I don’t know what possessed me to buy that!”

Today, there aren’t very many buildings designed by Frank Gehry, so it seems unique and different to us and so we “Ooh!” and “Aahh!” over them when we do see those buildings. But I was thinking… what will the next generation think of his designs/buildings? Will they think that it is different and beautiful? Will they like it? Or will they say, “Eww! That is the most ugliest building! What in the world was the designer thinking? I don’t know what possessed him to build that!” As a result, will the building make the neighborhood decrease in value then?

In the chapter called People and Prototypes, the author lists the 5 core skills of design:

1.  Form a solution from constraints and understand everything that will make a difference to the result.

2.  Frame the problem and objective

3.  Create and envision alternatives

4. Select from alternatives and choose the best approach

5. Visualize and prototype the intended solution

These five core skills of design reminds me of the steps of implementing a software system in IT.  The standard steps in a typical software system implementation are:

1.  Fit/Gap Analysis - Analyze the old system and the new system to see the constraints of both systems.

2.  Document the requirements for the new system.  Define all of the problems, constraints, and requirements (must haves) in the new system

3.  List all possible alternatives or possible solutions.

4.  Select the best solution

5.  Develop/Code the solution to make it work.

6.  Unit Test the completed solution.

7.  User Test the solution

8.  System Test the solution along with the rest of the system to ensure that it did not break anything else.

Here are my thoughts and observations from today’s company visits to Stanford’s d school, IDEO and Stanley’s Architecture:

1) Stanford’s design school and IDEO’s work area both seem chaotic.  Then again, as Peter said during his presentation at IDEO, “For innovation, you need chaos”.

2) Again, just as the other people we have met so far from WordPress and Yahoo!, Peter also stresses the importance of business leaders becoming more like designers or need to care a lot about design. 

3)  I like IDEO’s interpretation of performance within a company (via the Venn Diagram).  It’s true that the company we work for has goals and expectations from us and employees want or expect certain things (like passion) from the company as well.  If the two comes together and meets both requirements then we all still have a job within that company; otherwise we would leave because we won’t be satisfied.

4)  I am amazed that these small startups (IDEO and Stanley’s Architecture firm) do not need to advertise or find customers/clients (business development).  The clients come and look for them.  I am so amazed that they can be so successful this way. 

5) Again the common themes among these small companies, such as IDEO, the Stanford’s design school and the architecture firm are the cubicles or lack thereof.  Their desks are on wheels so that it’s movable.

6) SAP, Yahoo!, IDEO and Stanford’s design school all uses similar design techniques of brainstorming and sorting ideas or common related thoughts using colored sticky notes.  Of course, I immediately thought of 3M and my class from the fall semester.  Imagine if 3M gave up on the sticky notes idea!  Wow!  They would not have made so much money from the designers!  I bet designers are the main source of revenue for these sticky notes! 

7) I love IDEO’s meeting room technology!  If only the companies that I have worked for have that technology!  Even today, there are constant miscommunications about who has what room at what time.  This would solve any miscommunications or double bookings for conference rooms!

Here’s my thoughts and observations from Day 2’s Design Tour to SAP and Neutron. 

My thoughts on Professor Yoo’s presentation at SAP:

1)  It was a great presentation and it made me think about a few things.  Professor Yoo mentioned the reason why Sony Walkman became so popular is because of the experience and the design of the product.  I remembered back to my last GSM class (Management of Technology and Innovation) and we read a case study on Sony walkman and how they came about.  I find it interesting that depending on your background, different people think differently as to why a product was successful.  Marketers think that it’s because of the brand or advertisement.  Designers think that it is because of the experience and the design of the product.  Strategist think that it’s because of Sony’s strategy and because the walkman is so small and it was targeted to Japanese users who wanted small products that fit into their tiny homes.  Overall, I believe that it is a combination of all of the above that made iPod or the Sony walkman so successful.

2)  Professor Yoo mentioned that business evolve over time.  For example, WordPress was a software business but now they consider themselves to be a platform business.  I believe that for small to medium sized firms like WordPress, it is easier for them to transition, change or evolve from one business then become a whole different or new business and change their organizational structure.  I think that for large companies like IBM, it is much harder for them to evolve or change their business and organizational structure.  It takes a very long time before they can successfully change their business.

Thoughts and observations on our projects/presentations to SAP:

We all were given a topic or objective (vague details) and we all came out with different results.  We all presented differently and used a combination of different research and presentation methods.  This confirms Matt’s (from WordPress) statement about his company and the fact that he assigns each of his 20 employees the same project and goal and they all work independently and as a result, they each come up with different ideas, designs and solutions.  For a traditional firm, this may be perceived as a waste of money having many people work on the same issue, design and solution.  During Day 1, it was hard to understand why Matt managed his projects and people this way, but today, after our presentations, it became more clearer.  Overall, we all did an awesome job and we all learned so much from each other.  We came a long way from not having any design background to think like a designer.  I think that maybe business people/business leaders can think or become designers. 

Thoughts on SAP’s presentation:

1) Each company we have visited so far, have all mentioned that they hire employees from all different backgrounds because it provides open communication.  WordPress, Yahoo and Neutron all do this (hire people with different specialties). 

2)  The VP of SAP’s Design Team mentioned that if people can design, prototype and come up with a solution on a topic that they know nothing about, imagine if it’s on a topic that we do know about.  I believe that sometimes knowing too much about one topic or having too much knowledge with one topic actually becomes a disadvantage because it stops us from innovating and we can’t think out of the box. 

3) The VP also mentioned that they find out from the users of their software things that they can improve.  For SAP, how much of a problem is due to lack of user training or is it really a software issue?  I know that as a former PeopleSoft consultant and now a developer, I have an extremely hard time distinguishing whether something is a user training problem or a software problem.  Often, times I think that if I can learn something on my own, how come other people can’t figure things out on their own?  No one has any problem picking up an iPod and learn how to use it or going onto Amazon’s site and buy something.  After the VP’s presentation I did ask him about that and he mentioned that the difference is that people WANTED to learn how to use the iPod, but most people do NOT want to learn a new software application.  They are much more motivated to learning things that they want to learn about.  However, users of software products such as SAP and PeopleSoft, do not like changing something that they are used to or are comfortable using (their old system) and now having to learn how to use a whole brand new software package. 

4) As SAP, the company, grows bigger and bigger, it becomes more like a traditional company rather than a small start-up or medium sized company with more flexibility.  SAP’s design team is more creative and less traditional.  How does the design team work with the company as a whole?  How do they respond to the limitations of the budget and time given to them by the traditional business leaders/CEO?

Thoughts on Neutron’s Presentation:

From WordPress (IT Design - small internet startup company) to Yahoo (IT Design - medium sized internet company) to SAP (IT Design - large software company) to Neutron (Brand Design- small startup), all of these companies have one thing in common.  They all mentioned and emphasized that traditional focus groups do NOT work because people being interviewed are not honest when answering questions on the interview).  In addition, they all mention that business leaders need to be more innovative and become designers and designers need more business skills.  We need to merge the two skills (designing and business) together.  Bring design to leadership and vice versa.  Finally, all of these companies have mentioned or compared themselves to Apple, iPod and Steve Jobs.  It seems like all of these companies are fascinated about how Steve Jobs and Apple’s innovation process and culture. 

Another thing that I noticed that both Yahoo and SAP’s had in common where that their design employees decorated their cubicles very nicely with things hanging from ceilings, etc…  Most traditional firms would not allow that kind of individualism in the cubicles.  Also, both Yahoo, Neutron and IDEO (tomorrow’s visit) designers wrote and published design books.

Finally, one last thing that I have noticed and thought about over the last two days.  There’s a common theme/goal among all organizations, no matter what industry or business people are in:  It is to “Solve a Problem”.  For example, in design, the goal of designers is to solve a problem.  In technology or specifically software technology, the goal of developers is to solve a problem with the software, troubleshoot/research and develop a solution.  In Accounting, the goal of accountants is to solve tax payers problems and provide the best way for them to complete their tax return or save money.  In Finance, the goal of financial analyst is to solve investor’s problem of making money.  For Lawyers, the goal is to solve legal problems for people who need it or are in trouble.  For Doctors, the goal is to solve a medical problem and save a life.  I think you get my point.  I just thought that it is an interesting observation.  Now the more I think about it, maybe business leaders can think like designers because we all have a common goal…  trying to solve a problem… solve a business/corporate strategy issue.  We just need to learn to think differently. 

Ok, I thought I’d summarize all of my observations and thoughts from Day 1’s visit with WordPress and Yahoo. 

1)  During our conversation with WordPress, I was really amazed that Matt’s background is Political Science and Philosophy.  He wasn’t even a developer trying to come up with the next big thing.

2)  I found some commonalities between WordPress and other companies.  First, it seems like startup companies seem to begin their company by “winging it” and they still are “winging it”.  They start out with no business plan.  In IDEO’s book, “The Art of Innovation”, Tom Kelley also mentioned that they too just went with their guts and “winged” it and they became successful “winged it” and they are still “winging it”.  IDEO also mentioned that they did not have a business plan.  Second, these startup companies also seem to have begun their company by developing something that they needed for themselves and used their own software and then it got huge and became successful!  This is also how PeopleSoft began.  They developed and used their own HR software and then it became successful.  Finally,  both WordPress and Yahoo were ahead of the game; ahead of the competitors and understood what the next big thing may be and took a risk on it. 

3) The differences between the WordPress and Yahoo that I’ve noticed: They all manage their company differently.  WordPress has 20 employees and they all work from home from all over the world (Ireland, UK, etc…).  Matt says that he hires people who are disruptive and who are always unhappy with existing products and wants to change them.  I can’t believe he trusts his employees to be working from home.  How do you manage people working from home all of the time?  What if they slack off?  How does he know that they are actually working?  On the other hand, companies such as Yahoo allow each employee to choose the preferred laptops they want to use.  There were three presenters and each of them had different types of laptops.  One of them had an IBM, one had the new thin Apple laptop and the other had the regular original Apple laptop.  Can you imagine a traditional company like IBM or Oracle trying to maintain many different types of laptops and the cost of maintaining them?  It’s really amazing! 

4)  Both companies said that business leaders need to become designers to be more innovative, but how?  Business leaders in traditional firms are not very creative.  I don’t think that we can force them to become designers when they are not and we also can’t force designers to become business leaders either.  

5)  I also think that history seems to repeat itself.  Way back in the 1900s the companies (like Ford) created a new innovation (a car).  Then over the years all of the MBA schools concentrated on efficiency and production.  Then business schools concentrated on going global and low cost of labor overseas.  Now it seems like business schools are concentrating on design and innovation again but this time innovating higher technology products (like iPod, etc…).

6)  Finally, the last thing I was thinking…  isn’t WordPress free for the users to blog?  If so, how does WordPress or Matt make money?

I must say that I am just amazed by all of this and I have learned so much just by seeing the company in person and noticing these things around me and having fun while doing it.  I just have so much thoughts in my head right now that I needed to jot down.