英文原声 Innovation for Impact Part 1 (1/2)

 Innovation for Impact：Value Creation as an Active Learning Process Part 1

0:32In 1998 I became the CEO of SRI International, the famous research center that received the first internet transmission, developed the first AI-based robot, launched the personal computing revolution, and created inventions such as the computer mouse, electronic banking, and robotic surgery. In 1998, though, SRI was on its last legs. At my first off-site meeting, a manager stood up and told me we were not going to grow because we couldn’t. We were broke, our facilities urgently needed repair, and the land they sat on was being sold. Teams worked in silos, and most of the senior managers were pursuing their own agendas with little regard for what others were doing.

1:20When I left in 2014, revenue had more than tripled, and world-changing ideas had generated tens of billions of dollars of new marketplace value. By revamping the way employees worked, using a systematic, efficient process for value creation, we reestablished SRI as one of the world’s leading innovation enterprises. The success rate of our projects dramatically improved, and our people gained critical skills that would last a lifetime.

In this article I describe the process we used, which enabled us to produce technology such as HDTV and Siri (now on the iPhone). Our methodology is applicable for creating both disruptive and incremental innovations, and versions of it are used in major universities, national laboratories, and large global companies. It works for people in all positions and all professions because value creation is everyone’s job.

2:20Since leaving SRI, I have partnered with a former colleague there, Len Polizzotto, to further develop the methodology at Northeastern University and Worcester Polytechnic Institute. We call our approach Innovation for Impact, and in 2017 I coauthored a National Academy of Engineering report documenting aspects of the research behind it.

Creating Value Through Active Learning

2:45What sets our approach apart from others is that we consider value creation to be an exercise in active learning. Coming up with a novel product or service is not simply a matter of waiting for inspiration to strike but a process of using proven practices from the education sciences to gain insights and improve fast.

Active learning depends on engagement. Students become master architects, for example, not just by reading textbooks, listening to lectures, or watching other architects but by constantly working on and revising actual projects. Through that activity, they synthesize the theory they’re taught, the techniques they see others using, and their own ability to manage the design process.

People who try to learn purely through observation and theory miss a great deal and forget even more. That’s particularly true for anyone seeking to create value in business. Innovation occurs in a complex, dynamic environment; those who succeed do so because they manage to find the right signals in a sea of noise. To create efficiently and effectively in that context, people must follow a structured process that includes five basic elements of active learning:

1. Iteration with real-time feedback.

4:06In creative endeavors, repetition is central to learning. Serious piano students, for example, continually practice complex manual maneuvers and experiment with tempo and expression. Those activities are most effective when accompanied by real-time feedback from an expert who can reframe problems and provide potential solutions. Developing a new business idea is, of course, very different from learning to play the piano. The inputs are undefined and may come from a range of sources. So instead of a master-apprentice relationship, the process involves an innovator who keeps refining the idea and seeking feedback widely: from experts, peers, partners, competitors, and, most importantly, customers. Effective feedback initially focuses on arriving at one or two key insights into customer needs and possible solutions.

2. Concise mental models.

5:06Psychologists assert that all of us construct “mental models”—frameworks carried in our minds to make sense of our experiences and inform our decisions. In active learning, we use these models to identify the beliefs, insights, and assumptions upon which we build hypotheses for what works. We can then test our hypotheses against collected evidence and, if warranted, revise them to develop improved models.

It’s critical that the mental models that guide the initial inquiry respect the limitations of the people using them. Research shows that most of us retain only seven items, on average, in our short-term memory. What’s more, we can think about only three or four items at once. If innovators use mental models that are too long or too complicated (as many are), they will not easily make sense of the evidence or rapidly learn their way to better hypotheses. But if mental models are concise, they can, over time, become intrinsic knowledge to be tapped almost automatically.

3. Multiple learning styles.

6:17Active learning involves applying a variety of approaches to presenting and experimenting with ideas. Using images, simulations, and prototypes, for example, can bring ideas to life, highlight different aspects of a problem, and challenge people’s thinking about possible solutions. Storytelling is effective because it can create the context for a mental model: Research shows that stories help people remember information and revise their beliefs, assumptions, and theories.

4. Teamwork.

6:53Working in teams increases engagement, learning, and motivation. Research suggests that the optimal size for a business team is about five people. That number allows for a diversity of perspectives and skills, is small enough to prevent the group from subdividing, and reduces communication costs and the risks of miscommunication. Because value creation is a highly collaborative, interdisciplinary activity, no individual will have all the necessary knowledge, relevant mental models, or insights. This means that each person on the team must bring the distinct competencies and experiences required for his or her tasks. The goal is to assemble teams whose members have a shared vision but complementary skills and varied viewpoints.

5. Frequent comparison.

7:48Comparison is how we learn our preferences and decide most things, whether we’re buying a new car or choosing what to eat. And research shows that direct and rapid comparison of two similar objects greatly amplifies small differences. Suppose you need new eyeglasses. If you randomly try out different pairs, it may take a while to find one that helps you see better. So instead you get an exam in which you look into a machine that displays lenses of different strengths. Your doctor rapidly switches the lens in front of each eye, asking, “Which is better, this or the previous one?” Having you quickly compare lenses with subtle distinctions enables the doctor to swiftly zero in on the right prescription.

The Framework: An NABC Value Proposition

8:33Systematic success is achieved when all the building blocks of active learning are brought together in a complete value-creation system. Our approach focuses first on crafting a risk-mitigated value proposition for the offering you hope to bring to market. But how can you tell if you have a good proposition?

I once held a workshop for one of the world’s largest companies. The 30 participants were responsible for six initiatives, which they considered to be the firm’s most important ones. I started by asking them to write on sticky notes the company’s definitions for innovation, customer value, and value proposition. After they put all their notes up on a wall, what was obvious was the lack of shared definitions for the most basic concepts of value creation—a problem that was preventing everyone from being fully effective.

9:25I then gave the teams this instruction: “Write out your initiative’s value proposition on a flip chart. Tell us the customer needs, your approach for the offering, its benefits relative to its costs, and how it compares to the competition.” After half an hour, each team took two minutes to share its statement with the whole group. None was quantitative or convincing, and the teams went back to refine their presentations further. After several iterations, many of the teams found themselves questioning the merits of their initiatives. Some participants were visibly dismayed to realize that they’d been working on things that were interesting to them but of little importance to the company.

10:08This is not unusual. My partners and I have held workshops with more than 500 teams from major companies, universities, national laboratories, and government agencies. None has had shared language for the core concepts of innovation, and none has initially been able to address what we regard as the basic components of a value proposition. After we give people a framework, they typically conclude that less than a fourth of their existing projects, if completed, would provide significant value for their enterprises.

Our framework is anchored in a fundamental, concise model of what a value proposition should be. We call it the NABC value proposition, and it’s described at length in my book with William Wilmot, Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want.

An NABC value proposition covers four topics:

· Need: The offering should fill a significant gap in the market.

· Approach: The offering should meet customers’ needs in a unique, compelling, and defensible way and present an attractive business model for investors.

· Benefits relative to costs: The offering should provide obviously superior value for customers.

· Competition: Customers should find the offering consistently more appealing than the alternatives.

The innovator’s first task is to draft a value proposition that addresses all four elements. If one is missing, the proposition is incomplete and unlikely to support value creation. The elements are interdependent, which means that altering any one of them will affect some or all of the others. For example, if the customers’ needs change, so will the benefits relative to costs, the competition, and likely the approach.

12:07The conciseness of the NABC framework is part of its power. When people use it to evaluate a proposition, they need to think about only four elements. In contrast, overly complex frameworks violate core active-learning principles: The Heilmeier Catechism, for example, poses 11 questions, and the Business Model Canvas has nine sections, each with multiple questions.

At SRI we used the NABC model in defining the value proposition for Siri, which we originally conceived as a tool to help with travel arrangements. After it was spun out into a company that was acquired by Steve Jobs, Siri became a general-purpose assistant, but here’s a short version of what we told potential investors early on:

· Need: Busy professionals need assistants available 24 hours a day to make travel plans and reservations. Hunt-and-peck internet browsing and keyword searches are difficult, time-consuming, and ineffective in gathering information and completing transactions. Each wrong click drops out 20% of offerings that might meet searchers’ needs. Access to web services through mobile devices is a multibillion-dollar opportunity, growing at 35% a year, that is gated by the pain of the user experience.

· Approach: Siri responds to spoken English on smartphones, finding information and services and then performing tasks such as “Tell me the status of United flight 242.” The business model is collecting reference fees from service providers. A full commercial offering will be built within 12 months. We have an outstanding team of top-notch researchers and a proven CEO.

· Benefits/costs: Siri is a fundamental breakthrough in the mobile-phone experience. Just ask, and Siri, your mobile assistant, will take care of it. Our app is free to users and enables them to find basic services rapidly. Service providers get additional customers for a referral fee of $3 to $30.

· Competition: Siri is the world’s first computer personal assistant with a scalable business model. The app completes each search query twice as quickly as Google or Bing can. There are strong network effects, and our AI technology learns from users, which increases accuracy over time. Our intellectual property position is strong too; it includes 20 patents developed with $50 million of SRI R&D funding.

14:50People are prone to making three major mistakes in formulating value propositions. First, most people fail to pay adequate attention to their customers’ needs, which should be the foundation of the value proposition. Instead they fall in love with their idea, which means they focus almost exclusively on their approach. Over 95% of the innovation pitches I see are all about approach—a sign that the team has yet to figure out what really matters.

If teams avoid this trap and make an effort to look seriously at needs, they typically make a second mistake: over-relying on what customers say they’re seeking, rather than identifying the real need. Consider the first iPhone. Apple’s surveys at the time suggested that people wanted a better keyboard. What they actually wanted was more convenience and ease of use, and that is what the iPhone’s revolutionary touchscreen delivered. Customers can ask only for what they know, and they rarely know what is possible.

15:53The third major mistake is related to the other two: It involves spending too much money on an ill-defined approach. If the value proposition is not well-defined, building a minimally viable product wastes time and money. At the start, the smallest possible team should be assembled to address the major risks in the value proposition. Until those risks are mitigated, building the offering is almost always a costly error.

16:21When an NABC proposition is successful, it is usually because the people formulating it reframe the problem and focus on one or two big ideas that offer potential solutions. Today we’re all used to seeing upside-down ketchup bottles, but initially that design was startling. Bottles traditionally had narrow necks and stood upright to avoid messy leaks, but you had to tip the bottle and pound the bottom to get ketchup out, and you often wound up with more on your plate than you wanted. The solution was obvious once inventor Paul Brown realized that the challenge was not to make a standard bottle that dispensed ketchup better but to make an upside-down bottle that didn’t leak.