Part 4 of a four-part series from the paper Looking for Ideas in All the Wrong Places, An Argument for Staying in the Box, by Gwen Smith Ishmael and Renee Hopkins Callahan
What Goes Inside The Box?
The Fuzzy Front End should not be the place where go/no go decisions are made about ideas. But it can provide an environment where more viable ideas are generated. And, we would argue, the best way to provide that environment is to utilize the power of working inside rather than outside the box – power that comes from the very parameters, or constraints, the box provides.
There are no hard and fast rules about what the parameters of the box should be, but there are some things that might make sense to have in the box as constraints. For example, mission and vision statements provide excellent, high-level parameters for generating ideas. In order for an idea to have a chance of being successful, it should support the overall mission of the company and its vision.
Strategic imperatives represent the things your company simply must do – they are table stakes. For example, if your company provides local business information to consumers, then it is essential for that information to be accurate and timely. Strategic imperatives can offer solid boundaries within which to develop actionable, relevant ideas.
In order for an idea to be successful, it should support whatever it is you want say about your company, both internally and externally. So brand strategy and branding attributes might be important constraints to place in the box.
Any metrics that will be used to evaluate your performance and that of your team should be considered when building the box. And any other facts that are relevant to the success of an idea, such as the competitive environment, regulatory issues, and resource constraints, might serve as valuable guidelines for generating unique ideas that might meet the needs of the business.
Bringing Others Into The Box
Here’s a common assumption made in the Fuzzy Front End: “The best people in the industry work for us. They’ll be a great source of ideas.” But as Henry Chesbrough, author of Open Innovation, points out:
• Not all of the smart people in the industry work for you.
• No one has a monopoly on useful knowledge.
• Good ideas are widely distributed.
In other words, it’s best not to be the only one in the box; invite others in, such as industry and subject matter experts, lead users, mainstream customers, and consumers who are not your customers.
We’ve found it’s best to be highly selective about who you invite into your box. Involve subject matter and industry experts who embrace collaborative and mutually beneficial relationships. And invite customers and consumers to participate who are articulate and able to contribute new, far-reaching ideas that stimulate your own thinking.
Benefits Beyond The Fuzzy Front End
We mentioned that staying in the box is an approach that can benefit the entire development process. Because the structure of the box is based on business needs and constraints, the ideas generated inside the box would be influenced by those same things. As a result, the ideas generated inside the box should be more actionable and relevant to the business than if they had been generated outside the box.
If the ideas that move from the Fuzzy Front End into the next stage of development are more actionable and relevant, that should reduce the need for screening, filtering, and assessing a large number of low quality ideas that don’t meet the needs of the business. This means fewer resources could be allocated to the development process. Additionally, if we assume that the initial ideas address the needs of the business, we should see an increase in the number of ideas that could be brought to market successfully.
Is There A Time To Work Out-Of-The-Box?
We have found that out-of-the-box thinking has its place, and it can add value to the development process, especially in situations where novelty in and of itself is the primary goal. Additionally, there is some value in beginning the idea generation process with few constraints in order to lower inhibitions and barriers, particularly in a group setting.
But more often than not, there will always be some “box” (either spoken or unspoken) to operate within. Once out-of-the-box thinking has served its kick-starting purpose, novelty by itself will be insufficient. Perhaps Dr. de Bono summed it up best when he said: “[To have true value,] the creative idea must make sense and must work.” We would say, the goal of the Fuzzy Front End is to create ideas that are highly innovative yet make sense and will work within your product development process. And the best way to do this is to stay in the box.
PREVIOUSLY:
Part 1, Introduction
Part 2, The Goal of the Fuzzy Front End
Part 3, Why Staying In The Box Is A Good Thing
[Technorati Tags: innovation ideas creativity new product development]
Renee Hopkins Callahan started IdeaFlow and serves as chief blog-wrangler. She is 
1. Fred on February 8, 2006 10:49 PM writes...
Over the years, I have learned that statements to the effect of, “The best people in the industry work for us. They’ll be a great source of ideas,” almost never include the people who actually deliver the product or service to the end user. These folks know their products, they know their markets, and they know what their customers need/want/desire. And they know them a whole lot better than some jabroni sitting in the ivory tower of corporate headquarters looking for the Next Big Thing. But said jabroni is so busy listening to "the best people in the industry" that he misses out on the reams of real-world input just waiting for him, if he'd only bother to ask for it.
Permalink to Comment2. Renee Hopkins Callahan on February 9, 2006 7:40 AM writes...
Thanks for the comment, Fred. I think you're right. I guess that means there are two groups of people who these "jabronis" rarely listen to -- their employees and their customers. There's a big move afoot in innovation to automate internal idea management; you can read more about the companies that do this on the site www.innovationtools.com. Of course that too can be done badly, but even implementing such a program is often a step in the right direction. :)
Permalink to Comment3. Fred on February 9, 2006 11:41 PM writes...
" ... automate internal idea management ... "
Renee, I have been stewing over this all day, even as we tried to figure out what to do with the excess inventory of last year's Next Big Thing, which bombed in the marketplace, and I am left with the existential question: What difference does it make?
Years ago, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, I spent some time helping do do what I think can fairly be called "internal idea management." There being no computers, no LANs, and no email back then, we did it with multi-part forms, typewritten proposals, and interoffice mail. And year after year, we saved the American public (you) tens, and even hundreds, of thousands of dollars every year. This was possible, even in that antediluvian environment, because management at all levels supported, encouraged, and rewarded employee participation in the program.
Then I went to another department. Same program, virtually no participation. By then, we had computers, and LANs, and email. What we did not have was management that gave a damn.
It's all about corporate culture, Renee. And with all due respect, you can't automate corporate culture.
(BTW, if you want a preview of why one of today's heavily advertised Next Big Things is not going to meet its manufacturer's expectations, ask yourself this: If you knew that using this product as advertised could void the warranty on your new vehicle, would you buy it?)
Permalink to Comment4. Renee on February 11, 2006 7:29 PM writes...
Fred, you're right, you can't automate corporate culture. And I'm not in the business of internal idea management, though I know people who are. "Automated idea management" was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was organized idea management, and there are some companies that do this, hence a burgeoning business for people who are in the business of selling software systems to help run internal idea campaigns. The system isn't going to cause people to have ideas -- it's just going to help them get them submitted, and help whoever's charged with collecting and evaluating them. I hear your frustration about the Next Big Thing that isn't. There's definitely a culture issue there. Sounds like innovation decisions are being made without thought to strategy, or even common sense! :) renee
Permalink to Comment5. Fred on February 15, 2006 5:24 PM writes...
"I hear your frustration about the Next Big Thing that isn't. There's definitely a culture issue there. Sounds like innovation decisions are being made without thought to strategy, or even common sense! :)"
This was quite the topic of discussion today. Current strategy, such that it is, is to be first adopter of whatever product our vendors show up with, relying on them to have done some market research, and without so much as a bit of test marketing. This "practice" has apparently infuriated our new Executive VP, so we are hoping for the best. (8-)
Another new load of product has arrived, including this bizarre ... stuff ... from a company that bills itself as a "world leader thru INNOVATION." (Their capitalization.) But does the fact that they have come up with this "innovation" assure, by definition, its success in the marketplace? Or is this another case of a company bringing their Next Big Thing to market because they could? Heck, nobody asked us ...
Permalink to Comment6. Paula Thornton on February 27, 2006 10:38 PM writes...
So I wasn't that far off when I came up with the following tagline several years back: "Balancing the kinetic energy between people, process, and technology requires a cognitive ability to step 'inside' the box and not be blinded by the walls. It requires the ability to iknovate. [my play on words]"
What's also interesting about this series is the realization as to why I'm more comfortable 'inside' the box (I think there is a need for multiple specialties) -- I hate blank pages. I'm not an artist, I'm an artisan. The first thing I go looking for are the 'fixed parameters' and the 'flexible perameters'. What I'm often surprised by is that I will often identify as 'flexible' many parameters that others have dismissed as 'fixed'. I have discovered that this is a differentiator that is valuable (and something I've learned to appreciate more in others with similar insights).
Permalink to Comment7. Jim on February 28, 2006 10:16 AM writes...
My career in industry from aerospace design to FMCG packaging process design has reinforced my view that out-of-the-box innovation is about redefining boundaries.... personal, departmental, organisational, etc that allows us to see our boxes are bigger than the ones we think we are in. Opening our box also allows the light of cross-boundary stimulation to come shining in. It seems to be much more important to be given permission to play in the box rather than sit in it. We often find the box is flexible and we can do more than we think!
Permalink to Comment8. Fred on March 1, 2006 11:23 AM writes...
People assume that "the box" is rigid and inflexible, which is not necessarily the case. "Anything not prohibited is authorized" is a whole lot different than "anything not authorized is prohibited." In the first box, there's certainly room to innovate; in the second box, innovation is pretty well constrained. So the decision as to whether to go outside or stay inside the box depends first on the nature of the box itself.
Permalink to Comment