"Oh, I've never thought about it that way!"
Have you ever said this to a friend or a colleague at work? Or has anybody ever said this to you?
Probably.
We don't always share the same opinion or the same point-of-view with other people in our private or business environment. We typically also don't share similar backgrounds, know-how, experiences and skills. We are different.
Running dedicated idea campaigns is of tremendous help (read more about why they are helpful here: http://www.hypeinnovation.com/innovation/idea-campaigns).
An additional tactic that our clients have successfully utilized in recent years, is to raise idea quality and filter out weaker ideas quickly, to encourage audiences to actively collaborate on ideas being submitted. Active collaboration potentially reduces the chances of approving ideas with an unfitting quality level, which in turn reduces your risk of failure significantly. It also raises the chances of valuable ideas being identified, evaluated and implemented.
Working with 200+ multi-national organizations worldwide we have identified which tools and tactics organizations can use to identify and foster potentially successful ideas.
A substantial success factor, and a tactic we strongly recommend utilizing, is to actively select and drive audiences with different opinions, experiences and skill-sets to comment and vote on ideas. This means that others give feedback on your comments, but also you replying to the comments and ideas of others. These behaviors are desired in most campaign scenarios (there are exceptions, e.g. if it comes to IP-related campaigns).
Diversity is a key element - we want different audiences with different backgrounds to collaborate jointly. Let’s look at how this works and where the additional value is created:
What you see here is the process an idea typically goes through until it reaches a state that represents an implementable value proposition (“Final Concept”). Ideas are submitted to a campaign or an idea channel, and different users with different perspectives participate in the process:
The different “personally-types” have different mindsets, and are driven by different interests:
Interestingly, there is a strong correlation between the diversity of opinions and the success an idea achieves. The more personality types that participate, the higher the chance of an idea being implemented:
One of our clients, an automotive supplier specialized in producing car handles, recently wanted to run a campaign on optimizing the experience of opening a door on a car, mainly focusing on implementing small motors that could automate certain parts of the process.
When asked what the perfect solution would look like (putting practical limitations aside), a question we typically ask in preparation of a campaign, the feedback was surprising. We had the innovation-team in the workshop (all with an engineering background), but also the VP of Marketing. The engineers thought about how you could optimize small details of the experience of opening a car door - they focused on incremental steps.
When the VP Marketing was asked this question, he replied:
“Well, to be honest, in the best case you don’t want to use any handle. You approach the car, the door opens automatically, you sit in the car, and the door closes automatically. No physical interaction with the door at all.”
This came as a surprise for the innovation team, since implementing it would result in losing major stakes of their current core business. The innovation team doubted that this was the intention of the campaign and was hesitant to react. But the VP of Marketing explained that:
“If you truly want to innovate in our business you should think outside of the box, and think about totally different ideas and solutions, creating never-before-seen experiences. If we won’t do it, somebody else will.”
The engineers quickly understood what it means to break up frequent patterns of thought, and that true innovation sometimes means to de-construct first.
It became evident to everybody in the room that it is a benefit to invite people with some distance away from the campaign topic. They will be able to contribute in different ways than the people that are close to the campaign topic.