Comments on: Why we call something interesting? http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/08/why-we-call-something-interesting/ Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:48:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Nir Gordon http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/08/why-we-call-something-interesting/#comment-112 Nir Gordon Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:51:29 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=50#comment-112 Amnon / Drew - thanks for your inputs. Indeed in the project Amnon is referring to above, the aim was to reach disruptive ideas. this brought me and Amit (who facilitated with me the project) to the question: How can the definition for disruptive innovation (as Clayton Christensen phrased in his book "the innovators dilema", which Drew is referring to above) serve as a working tool for us to achieve the desired objective of disruptive ideas? Here came the Innovation Sweet Spot model (the NFS model) to our assitance. The Near-Far-Sweet model and the 2 principles (1) Qualitative Change that pushes ideas outbound from the Near to Sweet and (2)Closed World which pulls back ideas from the Far to Sweet zone, helped us find those ideas that are interesting enough to offer a replacement for the incubment and also not too far out to be a super "cool", breakthrough technology that will once again take the product to its next revolution, leaving the consumers with a highly sophisticated better product with improved features that will be easily disrupted. Once again, this was a great excercise to take a theory and look for the practical working tool that can assist one in the somewhat amoprohic task of "i need disruotive innovation". (same was done for the "Blue Ocean Strategy", and the "Business Model Innovation" (that i think Drew you referred to it in your blog, no? BTW - The results in the project were wonderful. Amnon / Drew - thanks for your inputs.

Indeed in the project Amnon is referring to above, the aim was to reach disruptive ideas. this brought me and Amit (who facilitated with me the project) to the question:
How can the definition for disruptive innovation (as Clayton Christensen phrased in his book “the innovators dilema”, which Drew is referring to above) serve as a working tool for us to achieve the desired objective of disruptive ideas?

Here came the Innovation Sweet Spot model (the NFS model) to our assitance. The Near-Far-Sweet model and the 2 principles (1) Qualitative Change that pushes ideas outbound from the Near to Sweet and (2)Closed World which pulls back ideas from the Far to Sweet zone, helped us find those ideas that are interesting enough to offer a replacement for the incubment and also not too far out to be a super “cool”, breakthrough technology that will once again take the product to its next revolution, leaving the consumers with a highly sophisticated better product with improved features that will be easily disrupted.

Once again, this was a great excercise to take a theory and look for the practical working tool that can assist one in the somewhat amoprohic task of “i need disruotive innovation”. (same was done for the “Blue Ocean Strategy”, and the “Business Model Innovation” (that i think Drew you referred to it in your blog, no?

BTW - The results in the project were wonderful.

]]> By: Amnon Levav http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/08/why-we-call-something-interesting/#comment-81 Amnon Levav Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:22:32 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=50#comment-81 To Drew's comment - i think this is a really important point about defining Disruptiveness not as a quality of the new idea but as a function of the incumbent being replaced (or probably as a function of both i.e. the relationahip between them). We had a project a few weeks ago in a large corporation which was defined as aiming for "disruptive" ideas, and the question what this definition applies to was pretty fundamental. Our colleague Nir is pretty involved int he subject, maybe this insight can be put to immediate practical use there To Drew’s comment - i think this is a really important point about defining Disruptiveness not as a quality of the new idea but as a function of the incumbent being replaced (or probably as a function of both i.e. the relationahip between them). We had a project a few weeks ago in a large corporation which was defined as aiming for “disruptive” ideas, and the question what this definition applies to was pretty fundamental. Our colleague Nir is pretty involved int he subject, maybe this insight can be put to immediate practical use there

]]> By: Drew Boyd http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/08/why-we-call-something-interesting/#comment-56 Drew Boyd Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:15:25 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=50#comment-56 Fabian, I'll offer a view to your very good question. I think the reason the Medici Effect works at all is because of what Roni has described here. People sense interesting intersections when they can connect what is known to what is unknown (new) to them. It's interesting. If the balance is missed in either direction, the Medici intersection does not offer much. I like your notion of the Medici Effect as intersecting two Closed Worlds. THAT is interesting. Regarding disruption, my view is that finding sweetspots is not tied to disruption at all. Disruption happens more often because the incumbent (leading technology) resists change, regardless of the novelty of the threatening new entrant. They ignore, therefore they get disrupted. It's not whether the new idea is disruptive, but rather how resistive the incumbent is to changing. Fabian, I’ll offer a view to your very good question. I think the reason the Medici Effect works at all is because of what Roni has described here. People sense interesting intersections when they can connect what is known to what is unknown (new) to them. It’s interesting. If the balance is missed in either direction, the Medici intersection does not offer much.

I like your notion of the Medici Effect as intersecting two Closed Worlds. THAT is interesting.

Regarding disruption, my view is that finding sweetspots is not tied to disruption at all. Disruption happens more often because the incumbent (leading technology) resists change, regardless of the novelty of the threatening new entrant. They ignore, therefore they get disrupted. It’s not whether the new idea is disruptive, but rather how resistive the incumbent is to changing.

]]> By: Fabian Szulanski http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/08/why-we-call-something-interesting/#comment-55 Fabian Szulanski Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:07:45 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=50#comment-55 Dear Roni, What would be your perspective about the identification of innovation sweet spot if you tried to apply it to Johansson's way of innovate, which encompasses looking for intersections between two or more closed worlds? In other words, should also the new closed world look for balance between the known and the unknown, or is the innovation sweetspot also open for disruptive innovation? Thanks in advance for your perspective. Fabian. Dear Roni,

What would be your perspective about the identification of innovation sweet spot if you tried to apply it to Johansson’s way of innovate, which encompasses looking for intersections between two or more closed worlds?

In other words, should also the new closed world look for balance between the known and the unknown, or is the innovation sweetspot also open for disruptive innovation?

Thanks in advance for your perspective.

Fabian.

]]>