More Evidence that Early-Stage Collaboration Erodes Innovation

Having spent a lot of time working for consumer product companies, I find this subject fascinating. And since the design process on all levels is very close to my heart, I wanted to share further evidence for the potentially distructive (at least disruptive) power of early-stage collaboration.

To be clear, I see no problem with seeking out a few people to use as sounding boards when faced with critical decisions. In fact, I'd say that doing so is necessary quite often is business. It's important to surround yourself with people who are knowledgable in different areas and to form an "inner circle" where you can go with ideas, questions, etc.

My point here relates to the process of innovation—i.e., clean-sheet design. Of course, innovation isn't limited to consumer product companies. We deal with innovation (and sometimes the lack thereof) in marketing and corporate communications everyday. If you have five minutes for an interesting read, check out what Behavioral Neuroscientist and Ph.D student Jake Young has written on Bounded Awareness.

For those without five minutes, I've excerpted a short sectionof the article, along with his citation, below:

...this gives rise to the so-called "focusing illusion", in which individuals make decisions based on only an overweighted subset of available information, underweighting and ignoring other information.

The earlier version of the paper has a section on bounded awareness in groups which is quite interesting, and which I think fits nicely here. Basically they say that, when a group of individuals gets together with some shared information and some unique (to individuals) information, they tend to focus on the shared information when making decisions. That is, they leave out information that is unique to individuals when deciding things, which can result in even worse decisions made by the group than by any given individual acting alone. This, of course, defeats the whole point of group decision-making, which is to get as much information as possible together to inform the decision!

—Chugh & Bazerman, Bounded Awareness: What You Fail to See Can Hurt You, 2005

Filed under  //   2010   awareness   bounded   collaboration   communication   innovation   jason lombard   marketing   may   psychology  

How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation - Knowledge@Wharton

Article Image

To come up with the next iPad, Amazon or Facebook, the last thing potential innovators need is a group brainstorm session. What the pacesetters of the future really require, according to new Wharton research, is some time alone.

In a paper titled, "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea (PDF)," Wharton operations and information management professors Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich argue that group dynamics are the enemy of businesses trying to develop one-of-a-kind new products, unique ways to save money or distinctive marketing strategies.

Terwiesch, Ulrich and co-author Karan Girotra, a professor of technology and operations management at INSEAD, found that a hybrid process -- in which people are given time to brainstorm on their own before discussing ideas with their peers -- resulted in more and better quality ideas than a purely team-oriented process. More importantly for companies striving for innovation, however, the trio says the absolute best idea in a hybrid process topped the Number One suggestion in a traditional model.

"Manufacturers prefer 10 machines with good output over one very good machine and nine really defective ones. You would rather have 10 good salesmen than nine poor salesmen and one superstar. In those areas, what matters is the total cumulative output, the total picture," Terwiesch points out. "When it comes to innovation, however, what really matters is not getting many good ideas, but getting one or two exceptional ideas. That's really what innovation is all about."

Although several existing experimental studies criticize the team brainstorming process due to the interference of group dynamics, the Wharton researchers believe their work stands out due to a focus on the quality, in addition to the number, of ideas generated by the different processes -- in particular, the quality of the best idea. They say the research is also distinctive in its study of how teams select the most promising initiatives that come out of the brainstorming phase.

"The evaluation part is critical. No matter which process we used, whether it was the [team] or hybrid model, they all did significantly worse than we hoped [in the evaluation stage]," Terwiesch says. "It's no good generating a great idea if you don't recognize the idea as great. It's like me sitting here and saying I had the idea for Amazon. If I had the idea but didn't do anything about it, then it really doesn't matter that I had the idea."

'The Boss Is Always Right'

Forty-four University of Pennsylvania students were recruited to help test how the two processes fared. The undergraduate and graduate students were divided into groups of four and asked to employ the hybrid process and team process separately to come up with student-friendly new product concepts for a hypothetical sports and fitness products manufacturer and for a hypothetical home-products manufacturer. Teams were given 30 minutes to brainstorm using the traditional group process. To test the hybrid model, they were asked to spend 10 minutes generating and ranking ideas individually and 20 minutes discussing those thoughts as a group.

The ideas generated by both methods were evaluated independently, by three separate panels asked to evaluate the product ideas on their business value; attractiveness to potential customers and overall quality based on the feasibility of actually building the product; the idea's originality; the size of the potential market for the product, and the extent to which it solved a particular problem. The students came up with a total of 443 ideas -- including a trash can that reduces the odor of the garbage inside it, a water bottle with a built-in filtration system and a waterproofing system that allows for reading in the shower.

Business leaders trying to integrate innovative ideas into their office culture can learn from the structure and intricacy used to generate and evaluate the ideas, suggests Terwiesch. He and Ulrich are also co-authors of the book, Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities, which suggests that companies should use coordinated competitions to filter the most exceptional proposals. He says an online system that creates a virtual "suggestion box" can accomplish the same goal as long as it is established to achieve a particular purpose. "People like having a process because they understand that it's fair. In a typical brainstorming meeting, it's not fair and everybody knows it: The boss is always right," Terwiesch says.

Imposing structure doesn't replace or stifle the creativity of employees, Ulrich adds. In fact, the goal is to establish an idea generation process that helps to bring out the best in people. "We have found that, in the early phases of idea generation, providing very specific process guideposts for individuals [such as] 'Generate at least 10 ideas and submit them by Wednesday,' ensures that all members of a team contribute and that they devote sufficient creative energy to the problem."

The results of the experiment with the students showed that average quality of the ideas generated by the hybrid process were better than those that came from the team process by the equivalent of roughly 30 percentage points. The hybrid method resulted in about three times more ideas than the traditional method. In addition, the quality rating was higher for the top five ideas produced through the hybrid process -- and the difference in quality between the team and hybrid methods in terms of the best idea was much higher than the average difference in quality, suggesting that "in an innovation setting, examining only [average] quality as opposed to the quality of the best ideas is likely to underestimate the benefits of the hybrid approach," the authors write.

Terwiesch says notions spawned through an individual brainstorming process are valuable thoughts that must not be "killed too early because of group dynamics. Your initial thoughts are very vital to the company because they are your unbiased opinion."

Self-Censorship and Build-Up

There are several reasons why people are less likely to offer an unbiased opinion in a purely team-based brainstorming process. Employees might censor themselves to go along with the status quo or to avoid angering a superior. Putting several people in a room together is bound to create a lot of conversation; if everyone contributes, there is less time for individuals to share all of their ideas. Some people may think less critically about a problem because they are happy to let others do the heavy lifting.

"We're fighting the American business model where everybody is [creative], which is just not the case," Terwiesch states. "We find huge differences in people's levels of creativity, and we just have to face it. We're not all good singers and we're not all good runners, so why should we expect that we all are good idea generators? But it's not politically correct to say so, even though there is more to being a good businessperson than generating ideas."

In addition to idea quality, the researchers also tried to measure one of the predispositions of group dynamics that they believe creates a roadblock to innovation -- build-up, or the tendency of people to suggest ideas similar to one that has already been proposed, and embraced by, the unit. They found that ideas built around other ideas are not statistically better than any random suggestion.

Build-up, Terwiesch believes, "is a social norm showing that you listened. If a group is working together on an idea that's already on the table, you're wary of coming in with your own agenda because you might be seen as selfish and not a team player. So you build on the idea that is currently on the table."

But that kind of thinking is what keeps the team from doing the kind of "sky's the limit" thinking that leads to the development of a product or process that hasn't been seen before. "Instead of searching the world broadly, we are all kind of searching only in this little sphere," Terwiesch says. "In innovation, variance is your friend. You want wacky stuff because you can afford to reject it if you don't like it. If you build on group norms, the group kills variance."

 

Filed under  //   2010   brainstorm   dynamics   generation   group   ideas   innovation   jason lombard   marketing   may   startup  

The Paralysis of Ideas (and How to Avoid It)

Let me start by saying that despite what you're probably thinking given the title, I'm not against ideas. It's not a crime to have ideas. Ideas are important—critical, in fact—to business. Being able to rattle off new and innovative ways of looking at things, or being able to brainstorm a new use for your company's widget; those are massive, possibly even game changing ideas. But as noted (and oft quoted) author Seth Godin mentions, ideas are worthless. It's not that they don't have any value per se, it's just that it takes a person with a plan to turn that idea into something that is worthwhile.

In my time working in the trenches, I've seen the same theme emerge over and over again. I still see it today, though from a different perspective (typically as a consultant or hired contractor). In many cases, good people—motivated people—feel compelled or are instructed by managers to come up with ideas on how to solve a specific problem. And unfortunately, it rarely stops there. In an effort to make sure that no stone is left unturned, a brainstorm session is added to make sure that enough ideas have been generated to cover all of the bases. The employee is usually left with a list of ideas, some good, some not so good, to wade through and execute on. This is where I would encourage every manager to hit the pause button.

At the end of the day, the objective isn't to have ideas, right? Ideas by themselves don't pay the bills. The objective is to take those ideas and turn them into something. To achieve a result. Logically, if the budget for the executing on these ideas is a pie chart, the more ideas you add, the fewer resources you have for each idea, right? I've watched way too many companies operate using this type of shotgun approach—committing only a small fraction of their resources to a myriad of projects, none of which ever gain them anything significant.

My challenge to you is to try putting your eggs in one basket. Analyze, strategize—try to determine which idea is going to provide the largest gains (monetarily, market share, etc.—whatever your metric) and fully commit to it. The key is having the discipline to focus your efforts and only execute on the idea that promises the best outcome.

There's another advantage to focusing on a single idea. You're able to avoid what I've termed "The Paralysis of Ideas". This is where an employee, beset with a list of deliverables, is paralyzed into non-action by either an inability to decide where to start, or by the thought that there's another possibility out there that they didn't consider. Both situations are extremely defeating to employee morale and ultimately to the company's bottom line.

In many cases, the only wrong-action is inaction. Mistakes are inevitable, ideas are many.  Trust your own judgment, as well as the judgment of those that you've hired (you hired them for a reason after all). Focus, execute, evaluate. Repeat as often as possible until the desired outcome is achieved.

Have thoughts or comments on this post? Are you struggling with "The Paralysis of Ideas" in your company? Drop me a line in the comments area below. Thanks for reading.

—Jason @ Ideavise

Filed under  //   2010   Seth Godin   business   consulting   contractor   execute   ideas   jason lombard   management   marketing   may   paralysis  

Why is Business Writing So Awful? | by Jason Fried

Great article from 37 signals founder Jason Fried. My business partner and I have followed the success of his company, 37signals for quite some time. I would encourage you to take a few moments to take a read through his blog or buy his book Rework (links to Amazon.com).

—Jason @ Ideavise

--

Why Is Business Writing So Awful?

Nearly every company relies on the written word to woo customers. So why is most business writing so numbingly banal?

By Jason Fried |  May 1, 2010
 
Jason Fried

What's bad, boring, and barely read all over? Business writing. If you could taste words, most corporate websites, brochures, and sales materials would remind you of stale, soggy rice cakes: nearly calorie free, devoid of nutrition, and completely unsatisfying.

One of my favorite phrases in the business world is full-service solutions provider. A quick search on Google finds at least 47,000 companies using that one. That's full-service generic. There's more. Cost effective end-to-end solutions brings you about 95,000 results. Provider of value-added services nets you more than 600,000 matches. Exactly which services are sold as not adding value?

Who writes this stuff? Worse, who reads it and approves it? What does it say when tens of thousands of companies are saying the same things about themselves?

When you write like everyone else and sound like everyone else and act like everyone else, you're saying, "Our products are like everyone else's, too." Or think of it this way: Would you go to a dinner party and just repeat what the person to the right of you is saying all night long? Would that be interesting to anybody? So why are so many businesses saying the same things at the biggest party on the planet -- the marketplace?

If you care about your product, you should care just as much about how you describe it. In nearly all cases, a company makes its first impression on would-be customers or partners with words -- whether they're on a website, in sales materials, or in e-mails or letters. A snappy design might catch their attention, but it's the words that make the real connection. Your company's story, product descriptions, history, personality -- these are the things that go to battle for you every day. Your words are your frontline. Are they strong enough?

Unfortunately, years of language dilution by lawyers, marketers, executives, and HR departments have turned the powerful, descriptive sentence into an empty vessel optimized for buzzwords, jargon, and vapid expressions. Words are treated as filler -- "stuff" that takes up space on a page. Words expand to occupy blank space in a business much as spray foam insulation fills up cracks in your house. Harsh? Maybe. True? Read around a bit, and I think you'll agree.

Luckily, there are exceptions. Wonderful exceptions. These are companies with a personality and a point of view. They care enough to have their own voice. They want to communicate, not just say something. They have a story to tell, and they want to tell it well. They write to be read.

Woot is one of those companies. Woot is a Dallas-based business that sells one item a day at a deep discount. Here is how the company describes itself on its website:

Woot.com is an online store and community that focuses on selling cool stuff cheap. It started as an employee-store slash market-testing type of place for an electronics distributor, but it's taken on a life of its own. We anticipate profitability by 2043 -- by then we should be retired; someone smarter might take over and jack up the prices. Until then, we're still the lovable scamps we've always been.

Don't you just love these people? Or maybe you hate them. Either way, I'm pretty sure you have an opinion about Woot based on this paragraph. With just a few sentences, Woot instantly set itself apart from the liquidation crowd.

Indeed, how the company communicates is a big part of how Woot built such a successful business. Woot's deal of the day sells out just about every day. I especially love the company's response to the "Will I receive customer support like I'm used to?" on its FAQ page:

No. Well, not really. If you buy something you don't end up liking or you have what marketing people call "buyer's remorse," sell it on eBay. It's likely you'll make money doing this and save everyone a hassle.

It's kind of kidding and kind of not. Some people may be offended, but big deal. Woot isn't trying to sell to every customer. It's trying to sell to the customers that can laugh along. Those are the people who understand what Woot is about. The company uses language as a filter.

Another favorite of mine is Saddleback Leather in San Antonio. Dave Munson, the company's founder, clearly loves his products and his words. Here's how he sets the scene when describing the quality of the company's bags:

You know how when a magician exposes to the world how other magicians trick people, all of the other magicians get mad at him for spilling the beans? Well, I'm about to spill the beans and ruin it for all of those companies trying to trick you into buying their not so high quality leather...You're about to learn what to look for and what to look out for as you shop for your next leather piece. By the way, if I soon die by a chopstick to the neck, you'll know why. I'm a marked man.

He then dives into great detail about what makes a great leather bag great. From the type of leather and where it comes from to how it's tanned to breakable versus nonbreakable parts ("How much is a billion dollar submarine with a plastic hatch worth?") to the number of seams, and so on. It's compelling and interesting. It holds your attention.

And check out how he explains his guarantee:

All of our products are fully warranted against all defects in materials and workmanship for 100 years. If you or one of your descendants should have a problem, send it back to me or one of my descendants and we'll repair or replace it for free or we'll give you a credit on the website (be sure to mention the warranty in your will).

Consider his choice of words. A 100-year warranty that his descendants will honor if one of your descendants needs a repair. And then he reminds you to include the warranty in your will. Who wouldn't want to do business with this guy? And it's all backed up with the Saddleback tag line: "They'll Fight Over It When You're Dead." Beauty.

When you're done reading this article, hit Google and search for leather bags. Then read through some of the sites you find. I bet you'll be bored to death pretty quickly. Then visit Saddleback's site. I bet you'll be smiling just as fast.

Here's one more example of writing done right: Polyface farm in Swoope, Virginia. Polyface is run by Joel Salatin, a pioneering farmer, author, and prophet of clarity. The Polyface Guiding Principles page is a study in straightforward language with a healthy hint of attitude:

Plants and animals should be provided a habitat that allows them to express their physiological distinctiveness. Respecting and honoring the pigness of the pig is a foundation for societal health....We do not ship food. We should all seek food closer to home...This means enjoying seasonality and reacquainting ourselves with our home kitchens.

I especially love his take on what it means to be a farmer:

We're really in the earthworm enhancement business. Stimulating soil biota is our first priority. Soil health creates healthy food.

Joel knows where he stands. When you read his site, you do, too. Even though Joel is a "full-service end-to-end" farmer, he'd never say it like that. He'd consider that description disrespectful to his customers, employees, plants, and animals.

The quality of the writing on sites like Woot's, Saddleback Leather's, and Polyface's gives me the chills. It's not how they look; it's how they read. These are businesses that care about what they say and how they say it. They don't write to fill up space on a page. They write to fill up your head. There is nothing inherently interesting about liquidators, leather, or farmers. They can make themselves boring, or they can make themselves interesting. Words do that job. Woot, Saddleback, and Polyface have all chosen to be interesting and engaging. They don't hide behind jargon. They aren't insecure. They aren't afraid to tell you who they are.

I can already hear some of you saying, "Sounds great. But I can't write." So hire a writer. But make sure that writer truly understands your business. Remember: It's not about telling a story. It's about telling a true story well.

Of course, words alone won't do it. Words are two dimensional. Your products and services provide the third dimension -- depth. But when it all comes together, you've got a package that's hard to ignore.

Jason Fried is co-founder of 37signals, a Chicago-based software firm, and co-author of the book Rework, which was published in March.

via inc.com

Filed under  //   2010   37signals   brochure   copywriting   customers   jason friend   jason lombard   language   marketing   may  

The Myth of Beautiful Website Design | Copyblogger

Great post via copyblogger.com

I was preparing a post on this very topic. I hate being scooped,  but since mine wasn't going to be penned by a contributor to one of the best marketing copywriting sites on the web, I decided that I'd post this one and get back to work. :-)

--

This one will probably get me into trouble.

I’ve worked as a graphic designer for over two decades and I’m not supposed to say this stuff. After all, it’s my job to make miracles. To wave my magic design wand and make a business look stronger, smarter, and more powerful than it really is.

Before I start dodging rotten tomatoes, though, I’m going to go ahead and say it out loud.

It’s a smart business move to have a well-designed website.

But good design — even great design — won’t solve all your business problems. Not even close.

Design is not a magic pill

If you don’t have a basic marketing plan in place, design can’t cover that up.

The first question I ask people when we talk about a new project is, “Who are you trying to reach?” It’s shocking how many businesses have put hours of thought into their design without ever considering the most basic of all marketing questions: “Who am I selling to?”

If you’re not clear on who you want to appeal to, the most gorgeous website design in the world won’t help you make sales.

Figure out who you want to reach first, and focus on design after you’ve made that decision. You’ll find your design works a lot better when every color choice and pretty picture is especially made to appeal to the people you want to draw to your business.

Design is not your message

Before you add design into your marketing mix, you have to know what you want to say.

This should be easy for you. After all, you’re reading Copyblogger to learn more about the vital elements of quality content. That’s why it’s strange that there are people out there who think they can rely on their design alone to communicate their message.

Think about it this way: you have a beautiful website. It may stop people in their tracks long enough to want to learn more. That’s great, but if they read on only to discover that you have unfocused or boring content, you will lose them.

Good design may get customers in your door, but great content keeps them from walking right back out again.

When you implement both good design and solid, valuable content, you’ll double the power of either of these elements alone. Don’t rely on design alone to communicate your message.

Design is not about you

Don’t make design decisions based on personal likes or dislikes. Make them based on what appeals to your target market, and the colors and forms that will best communicate your message.

If your target market thinks yellow is an appealing, fresh, happy color that endears them to your services, then it doesn’t matter that yellow is your least favorite color.

When you let your site or materials reflect only your personal tastes, you’re risking your design not resonating at all with the people you want to bring to your business.

Check your ego at the door and think about who you want to sell to.

What are their problems? What colors, shapes and content will appeal to them?

Let those answers inform your decisions far more than what you personally like to look at.

Design won’t work miracles

Don’t expect miracles from your graphic design. It’s definitely a valuable part of creating your business’s image, but it’s not a substitute for a sound marketing strategy.

A great design is a wonderful package for what you have to offer. And packages matter — a lot. But there always has to be something good inside the package.

Do your homework first and start thinking about your design only once you are clear about who you want to reach and what you want to say. This information should influence every design decision you make.

And by considering those two elements first, it’s practically guaranteed that the pretty colors, typefaces, and pictures you choose will reach out and touch the market you’re aiming for.

--

Thoughts? Comments? Drop me a line at jason@ideavise.com or jot down a quick comment below.

Thanks for reading.

—Jason @ Ideavise

Filed under  //   2010   business   copywriting   customer   design   jason lombard   marketing   may   message