A large part of disruptive product development is convincing people that it is necessary, which is a tremendous challenge, particularly given that most people who are in positions of authority within an organization got there by doing what it is that they continue to think is essential for their on-going existence.
Article
From: Time Compression,
Gary S. Vasilash,
Editor-in-Chief
from
Gardner Publications, Inc.
Posted on:
4/22/2011
Disrupt: Think the Unthinkable to Spark Transformation in Your Business (FT Press) is a comparatively slim book for people who are interested in new product development, so in terms of the amount of time required to go from page viii to 198 (and that includes the index), it won’t be too disruptive if the reading is done straight through, without pauses for consideration or exercises, and that non-stop reading is precisely what Luke Williams, a fellow at frog design (frogdesign.com) and adjunct professor of Innovation at NYU Stern School of Business (stern.nyu.edu), doesn’t want you to do because Disrupt is like a long recipe of how to create disruptive innovation, and unlike a recipe for baking a cake (“Mix two cups of flour, ½ cup of milk, two eggs . . .”) this book provides the approach, method, or process descriptions necessary for creating disruptive products and Williams asks that you provide the ingredients predicated on your particular situation and needs.
(Whew—that’s a long sentence.)
Williams sets forth an outstanding/compelling rationale for why people in a company ought to be interested in disruptive product development. As Williams explains from the get-go: “Unfortunately, people are usually most comfortable with what’s most familiar—and the product, service, or business model that they’ve experienced most often is the one that seems intuitively right.” In other words, they think and feel what they’re doing is the proper thing to do, even though everything else around them has changed; these people are pretty much waiting for things to settle down, which isn’t going to happen. And if they’re so bold to think “change,” the likelihood is that they’ll do it in baby steps, increments. As Williams argues—correctly, I think—“when a business makes only incremental changes, they find themselves on a path that gets narrower and narrower. Eventually, they reach the end of the path, and by then, their customers have forsaken them for a new offering that nobody saw coming.” And how are those increments going to work out for them then?
Lots of people spend lots of time talking about “ideation,” or generating ideas, and while that’s where you’ve got to start for disruption—“We’re looking for disruptive ideas—ideas that have the power to influence and to shape behavior,” he writes—the real key is a solution, which is, in effect, a deliverable: “Remember: There’s a simple but critical difference between an idea and a solution: A solution is always feasible. If it’s not, it’s not really a solution.” And if you don’t have a solution, you don’t have something that you’re going to be able to put out in the market. Sure, you may have reams and reams and reams of ideas, perhaps all nicely laid out on the walls of a “war room” or Obeya or whatever. But unless there is a feasible, functional deliverable, it isn’t product development, it is idea development.
A large part of disruptive product development is convincing people that it is necessary, which is a tremendous challenge, particularly given that most people who are in positions of authority within an organization got there by doing what it is that they continue to think is essential for their on-going existence. After all, that’s what got them there, right? “You may have the best solution in the world,” Williams points out, “but if you don’t come up with a persuasive story of why it matters it’s not going anywhere.” All of the design and engineering chops in the world aren’t going to get the solution out in the world if you don’t have a high level of rhetorical skills that will let you convince the Powers That Are (for now) of the necessity of making the radical change.
