• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Values Sensitive Innovation
 

Values Sensitive Innovation

on

  • 1,912 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,912
Views on SlideShare
1,050
Embed Views
862

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
59
Comments
0

4 Embeds 862

http://designdialogues.com 854
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 5
https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net 2
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

Values Sensitive Innovation Values Sensitive Innovation Presentation Transcript

  • Values Sensitive Innovation PAIN CONSULT StrategicConcept design workshop conflicts interventions in value Peter Jones Strategic Foresight & Innovation(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • KEY ISSUES Systemic effects of values in innovation • Values in product & service design • Process & Practices • Organizational values & innovation Identifying values / conflicts as root cause drivers • We tend to observe effects – outcomes of choices • Values as form of tacit knowledge “know how & why” • Persistent, slow change cycles(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Where do values tensions / conflicts show up in everyday products?(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Apple’s iTunes Store(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Exodus “Gay Cure” App(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Case 2WebMD• What do you notice here?• What is the most salient message?• What values are prioritized?• How could caring values be better presented?(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • How do values actually show up? Who says there’s a conflict? Can we always predict a conflict?(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Where & how have you experienced a values conflict in a product or service? (Write down, then share in pairs for 2 min each.)(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • CASES IN POINT(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • DEFINE INNOVATION • Significant invention with the capacity for transformation. • Strategic innovation sustains business strategy through significant invention, designing new or breakthrough products to fulfill strategic intent. • And user intent. • Strategic innovations can be internal too.(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES CHANGE WITH SUCCESS • Customer Satisfaction • Relationships • Stability VALUES Exploit – Customer Intimacy • Focus or Direction • Excellence • Routine Expand - Growth • Independence • Innovation • High Risk – Reward STRATEGY • Vision Explore – “Innovate or Die” Start-Up Growth over time Leader(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones Jones, P.H. (2002). When successful products prevent strategic innovation. DMR.
  • THE PARADOX “One of the bittersweet rewards of success is, in fact, that as companies become large, they literally lose the capability to enter small emerging markets. Their disability is not because of a change in the resources within the companies — their resources typically are vast. Rather, it is because their values change.” Clayton Christensen (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma.(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • What’s a current example of a company fitting this pattern?(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • IS GOOGLE THE NEW MICROSOFT? 2011 • Killing off apps • And Labs VALUES • Products? Exploit – Customer Intimacy 2007 - Dozens of apps Page: All Google products fit 3 • Google Labs • Google.org categories: • Acquisitions • Search ads and ad products. Expand -•Growth Products Acquisitions with high consumer success: YouTube, 2001 - Universal Search Android, Chrome. • Adwords • 20% project time • STRATEGY New products like Google+ & “Offers” (Copying winners) Explore – “Innovate or Die” Start-Up Growth over time Leader(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones Jones, P.H. (2002). When successful products prevent strategic innovation. DMR.
  • Values Conflicts in Innovation Management Process Process Type Official process Process in use (example) Organizational Targeted Selection hiring Hiring decisions made from informal Management process involving multiple interviews and manager gut feel. functions to develop criteria & interview. Market Research Third-party product & Sales presentations to important usability research customers Product Lifecycle Cooper’s Stage-Gate process Project oversight, shoot-from-hip at executive committee meetings Product Management Requirements Management Product management by personal feature lists Project Management Work Breakdown Structure Using Microsoft Project templates for project Product Design Product Design management process Dictated by product manager Development(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Values Conflicts - WHY Level of Activity Management Processes Process Values Organizational Strategic Planning Economic effectiveness Marketing, Market Research Brand integrity Product Management Return on project investment Project Portfolio Management Customer satisfaction Project Product Lifecycle Management Efficiency Project Management Execution Project metrics as values: (Scope, Schedule, Budget) Design Established design process Design excellence Design community practices End user satisfaction Effectiveness and usability Local expert practices Professional values(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • Process Stage Points of Values Conflict & Resolution Requirements Intent of requirements - customer, user, utility or profit, etc. Definition Values Conflicts in Innovation Social power of product owner - decision-making style, etc. Management Process feedback continuity. Requirements process factors: Access to users, openness to critique or change, prototype flexibility, Priority differences among team members. Conceptual Definition of product, interpretation of requirements Design Developer values can influence initial design. Values of customer - considered in scope? Representation of requirements priorities. Detailed Design Interpretation differences between product mgr and designers. Representation of functions in the user interface. Developer “willingness” to design for difficult requirements. Development Development management backing priorities of product. Designed deviations from conceptual design. User feedback messages and user interface decisions. Testing Determination of test cases and success criteria. Process - ability to test with user/customer representatives. Delivery Values conflict points in a product/service design lifecycletesting. Approach toward alpha/beta Approach toward cataloging customer feedback in process. Descriptions of product/system & their relationship to release.(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones Marketing descriptions and propositions.
  • (cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • WHAT’S THE (WICKED) PROBLEM? • Our organizations need help. We live with/ in the unlivable. In many firms, the values of efficiency, hierarchy, central control have reached unsustainable extremes. • Leaders attempt change (transformation), but usually instrumental. Zuboff, 1998 “Mommy & Daddy are not at home.” • Business research & “design thinking” unhelpful to change Most of this is short term, goal-oriented, not socially responsive • Continue to see inability to learn as org cultures The new is valorized (managers, processes)(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • WHAT’S (AT LEAST ONE) “ANSWER?” Socializing … an organic process that diffuses artifacts & activities throughout an organization, creating a web of connections that supports sustainable organizational practices. See also: Lateral, horizontal, evangelizing(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • ORGANIZATION AS PLATFORM FOR EVOLVING PRACTICES Strategy, Vision: Direction Processes: Org routines in production (Processes are what the firm recognizes) Practices: How things are done, where innovations emerge. Some grow into processes. Mintzberg “The Structuring of Organizations”(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • A CASE STUDY • Large ($2B) retail systems provider • Spent >5 years developing “best practices” • Planned a “revolutionary” product (with customers & tests) • Tech evolved, & design changed over 5 yrs • Development team sequestered - (to “innovate”) Kept the project secret from rest of the company - until ready to are: The governing Values of Model I release • Corporate Persona Achieve the purpose as the actor defines it Win, do not lose 100+ year old Fortune 500, Product lines, Traditional hierarchy Suppress negative feelings Emphasize rationality Internally competitive, Argyris “Model I” org Primary Strategies are: Control environment and task unilaterally Protect self and others unilaterally(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • PROCESSES INSTITUTIONALIZED • Original UX process had failed • UX goals, deliverables, feedback “pre-framed” By product & marketing management No latitude to share fuzzy, emergent findings from field • Repeatable, measurable, defined routines • Process view assumes portable “plug & play,” (IBM RUP) • Consistent training of all using process • Lines of authority & expertise form (quickly) • Imported processes rarely sustainable • And processes work against knowledge & growth.(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • AFTER THIS FAILED IN MARKET … • Company reorganized UX as a small team • With a small budget – Consultant + 2 staff To develop prototypes & practices for interim product • “Best practices” replaced by actual user feedback • Developed new practices & shared results openly (Model II, double-loop, mental models) • Structuration of new practices • Hopeful speculation: As socialization worked here, it may work in any Model I firm.(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • SOCIALIZATION LIFECYCLE Marketing Product Marketing Product SW Dev SW Dev Project A Project A Design Design Management Management Consultant Consultant 1. No UX competency. Initial team formed for project. 2. Project connects team across departments. text Marketing Product Project B SW Dev UX Group Project A Design Management Project C Consultant 3. Project produces artifacts, starts sharing 4. Demand increases: Skill building,(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones projects. resources laterally to other recruiting, & management follows.
  • PRACTICES IN A PROCESS WORLD • Practice development is often disrupted by well-meaning intervention of management Imposing best practices & “repeatable processes.” • New processes institutionalized by management are “brittle,” compete for resources & standing • Direct learning & competency development at the front lines become strategic competencies that grow the firm and sustain its competitive position. (Penrose resource theory of firm)(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • PRACTICES SOCIALIZED • Build an organic demand & interest in the (UX) practice. Consult laterally to other projects as capacity builds. • Collaborate with managers and other roles to integrate practice into business processes. This ensures takeup by meeting common needs across lines / processes • Provide awareness sessions, discussion, & education as needed to fit resources to the process. Assessment and renewal, staffing, building competency.(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • “IMPROV DESIGN” IN THE ORG LAB Participation enacted in organization differently over time For rare, knowledge-based skillsets such as UX, design, research, or internal startups Leverages available resources with expert support (to plan, generate prototypes, etc.) Projects serves as autonomous testbeds, allowing refinement of practice until “sharing readiness”(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • (cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones
  • CONCLUSIONS • Socialization a macro-method for participatory organizational practice design : Values shifting Values shifts occur from resilient cultural changes, trust, over time • Leverages weak ties & generates strong demand among resources in an org network. Develop “functionally similar” processes (e.g. UX) from unique, tailored knowledge • Follows a resource-based view of strategy: A firm grows from its unique competencies, not copyable processes. Competitive base formed from unique use of knowledge(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones