Spring has already passed and the lack of inspiration that accompanies the heat of July and August is upon us. Now is the time to internalize a principle that will help us pass the summer in peace: “Use resources that exist in your surroundings and make new things with them.” Why? Because it is efficient, respectful of the environment, and many times more likely to lead us to creative and surprising ideas.

 Take, for example, the Wind Light - a light source system designed by Lior Yisrael that was chosen to be used on promenades and beaches. The Wind Light does not rely on an external electricity source; rather, it makes use of wind energy in order to produce electricity. The energy that is produced by the wind is conserved and stored in the light post, and serves as the post’s sole source of electricity. By doing this, Yisrael found a creative way to harness a resource that exists in abundance – the breeze at the beach – and to assign it an additional task: that of serving as the energy supply for the light post. And if that is not enough, indeed there is another surprise latent in the product: the body of the light post produces light according to the intensity of the sun, so that after the sun sets, the intensity of the light increases.

 The same principle is also found at the core of Soccket – a soccer ball that serves as a portable charger. The soccer ball takes advantage of the energy produced when children play, and uses that energy as electricity for the community. In the reality of our lives, in which electricity flows abundantly and electrical appliances in the home are turned on non-stop, it is easy to forget that in many parts of the world electricity is still not available at all times. The Soccket, therefore, improves the situation in several ways. It provides enjoyment for children, portable and available electricity, and a sense that there is a stronger feeling of community (in places where the game played is providing the electricity).

 Behind these two ideas hides one shared principle: the principle of the “closed world”. This principle dictates that whenever possible, with new product development or with problem solving, one must use resources that already exist in the product itself, or in its nearest surroundings.

 
 The “closed world” principle is not a random strange thought; it is one of the thinking principles from the SIT – Systematic Inventive Thinking method for generating new ideas. This is a creative thinking method, at whose core stands the assumption that creative products and solutions share common patterns. Therefore, it is not surprising that a principle that has proven itself useful with one idea will repeat itself again and again in different applications.

 Many people believe that it is not possible to innovate and preserve the quality of the environment at the same time. This is due to the fact that when we attempt to innovate, we usually do so by adding: more functions, more buttons on the portable phone, a bigger television screen. This almost always requires more resources, bigger batteries, more electrical power, etc. Proper use of the closed world principle directs us towards solutions of a different type: instead of adding external resources to our product, we are encouraged to think anew about those resources that are already at our disposal, and to use them in a new way.

 The use of an existing resource for a new mission or task is not only more efficient and less expensive, and usually more considerate of the environment – it also expands our thinking capabilities.

So, put on your creative sunglasses and look thoroughly around you: what resources are at your disposal? For what other tasks can they be useful? By thinking this way, you, too, will be able broaden the range of your creative thinking and thus be able to develop new ideas more efficiently and resourcefully!

Click here to contact us

Hats off to Puma and its design agency Fuseproject and ad agency Droga5 for their ‘Clever Little Bag’ film explaining how innovation changed Puma shoeboxes to reduce paper waste!

See for yourself and enjoy a 1 minute 25 second course in innovation and corporate citiizenship!

It’s good to see that innovation can do a significant lot for a much better world.

Full Credits for the work:

Client: Puma Design

Firm: fuseproject

Agency (Video): Droga5

Creative Chairman: David Droga

Copywriter: Adam Noel

Art Director: Jon Kubik

Art Director: Kenny Kim

Head of Integrated Production: Sally-Ann Dale

Agency Producer: Samuel Kilbreth

Agency Digital Producer: Andrew Allen

Production Company: Labour Director: Ryan Dunn

Director: Wyeth Hansen

Executive Producer: Max Knies

Song: “Checkers” By Antfood

Sound: Labour

Considering the great resources governments and companies dedicate to the purpose of sustainable innovation, we should ask ourselves – how should we manage our innovation? Can we go “too far”?

Let’s try and answer this question, using one of Boeing’s latest and most innovative projects as a case study: the new 787 Dreamliner.

In a world where aerial transportation is becoming more frequent, and carbon footprints fill our sky, the attempts of airline companies for sustainability are greater than ever. Airbus’s (Boeing’s European nemesis) sustainable solution was bigger airplanes – thus reducing the average carbon footprint per passenger. Boeing had a more innovative solution – the 787 Dreamliner.

The 787 Dreamliner is the first of its kind. The Dreamliner is made mostly of lightweight composite materials, hence consuming 20% less fuel for every passenger, emitting less carbon to the air and allowing quieter landings and take-offs.

Airbus has already started working on their answer with a similar lineup of materials for the 350-800 models, but they are not due until 2014.

Without a doubt, the 787 Dreamliner is a revolutionary vehicle, which may change the future of how we travel. If Boeing’s mission was to create an innovative sustainable solution for aerial travel, they succeeded in doing so, thus turning the 787 Dreamliner into an effective project. Unfortunately, this innovative project proved to be more demanding than Boeing ever planned, leading to  billions of dollars in unexpected losses due to delays in launching. So the question rises - was it an efficient project? Boeing did the right thing (effective), but did they do it in the right way (efficient)? Did Boeing take their innovation “too far”? To answer this question, we should examine Boeing’s innovation process a little more in depth.

To create the Dreamliner, Boeing took upon itself an innovative process that redefined its core capabilities, innovating not just its (1) product, but also its (2) supply chain and its (3) assembly line.

The 787 Dreamliner includes significant technological innovation, constructed of a new light combination of materials (50% composites by weight – 80% by volume). In addition, the 787 Dreamliner also includes new and more efficient engines, system application and aerodynamic updates of the wing surface.

In order to manufacture the Dreamliner, Boeing had to create a new model for manufacturing and assembling – creating new and dependent connections with suppliers from around the world. The result was a delay of more than a year and a half in launching. Boeing estimates losses at $2.5bn for late deliveries to customers in 2008 alone.

The Dreamliner 787 may have been a successful project, but it came with a great unexpected tag price. It seems that the innovation process was so comprehensive (including several of the company’s core capabilities), it required many more resources than planned, leading to significant loses for Boeing.

Are these the dangers of taking innovation “too far”? And if so, will playing it safe be the alternative? Not going “far enough” (Near) and merely creating minor upgrades for existing products? How can we know “how far” to take our products?

Many companies confront the tension between creating products that are so innovative that they reduce costs, to “upgraded products” that don’t offer real innovation or competitive advantage.

In SIT terms, we ask: how can we aim for that “sweet spot” between those two extremes. The principle of Near-Far-Sweet (NFS) exemplifies the tension between the two, and helps us develop products that are not only innovative but also applicable.

A good example of the NFS principle is Apple’s Ipod Shuffle.
On the one hand, by taking out the display screen from the original Ipod, Apple created a product that was “Far” enough from its original to attract real interest - offering a dramatic and innovative change for the consumer. On the other hand, the actual process was simple enough, based on Apple’s existing pipeline and capabilities (Near). The result was a new innovative brand of Ipod adopted by a new target audience - sport lovers that have no need for changing songs in mid-activity. Sweet.

NFS is one of the principles of the SIT process, which calls for innovative ideas to be drawn from the products, capabilities and knowledge the company already has (Near), hence reducing the chances for innovation that isn’t practical or competitive (efficient). And by using systematic tools and principles for innovation, rather than the preconceptions of customers or markets, you can generate ideas that are “Far” enough from what you and your customers know and expect, reaching that innovation “sweet spot” (effective).

The Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner is a praiseworthy product, and we can only hope future innovative projects will have a similar impact on the environment. Perhaps future sustainability projects, managed systematically with innovation tools like the NFS principle, will prove to be more efficient as well.

Shachaf Snir  is an intern at SIT, part of the Knowledge management team.

Shachaf and the rest of us at SIT would be happy to talk to you about innovation.

Click here to contact us

Cognitive Fixedness, first defined by psychologist Karl Duncker, prevents individuals and companies from creating new configurations in the systems they manage.  This often blocks us from seeing potential efficiencies and material reduction, and breakthrough solutions to problems.  SIT tools help break 3 kinds of cognitive fixedness:

1. Structural – The tendency to view products and systems as a complete gestalt.  Many of SIT’s tools help break this particular fixedness.  The following water saving toilet (click to check out the cool animation!) was developed by Villeroy-Boch in an SIT workshop.  Multiplying the water streams resulted in more pressure in each stream, therefore requiring less water.  This product won the ISH Innovation Prize and was chosen by Deutsche Bank in its transformation of its HQ to be the most environmentally friendly high-rises in Europe.

2. Functional – Seeing objects as capable only of fulfilling their original function.  SIT uses the Task Unification tool to help innovators find new uses for existing resources, thus forcing them find new functions for available objects and tackle functional fixedness.  My previous post described several such uses of unexpected resources for generating energy.

3. Relational – The tendency to view relationships and dependencies between variables of a situation as static and permanent.  Assif Strategies, our partners in Greener by Design, described the following case study in the conference: A bus company’s emissions were well above calculated expectations.  They had 100 old buses and 50 new ones, and 400 drivers. Assif discovered that drivers were allowed to select both their buses and their routes based on seniority. Naturally they chose the easier routes (that had less stops and fewer shifts) and the newer buses. The relationship that resulted was that the older buses drove the stop and go routes on 3 shifts, while the new ones drove more continuously and were parked at night, obviously resulting in much higher emissions than necessary. Breaking this relational fixedness required a major cultural change in the company, but by creating a new relationship within existing available resources, the bus company was able to reduce over 10% of its emissions.  Along with some other simple changes, it achieved a total reduction of 50%.

Watch this short video for a new type of green fixedness…

The challenge of breaking fixedness is threefold.  First, the innovator must recognize that they could be suffering from cognitive fixedness, and not seeing the entire potential “playing field”.  Second, after the innovator recognizes certain underlying assumptions in the system in question, they must accept that these can be changed, and not take them for granted, because “this is how we always did it”, or “this is how it must be done”.  Lastly, the innovator must be flexible about the structure, functions and relationships between the system’s elements in order to generate new forms that can lead to new thinking and new solutions.

This concept ties in well to the message of the charismatic keynotes in the conference, who all essentially break a critical underlying assumption about our industry or society: from William McDonough (Cradle to Cradle, MDBC) who questions why can’t a building be as smart as a tree, creating oxygen, food and shelter, to Tom Szaky (TerraCycle) who challenges the entire concept of garbage, to the point that he “no longer sees trash, only cash”, and to David de Rothschild, who endeavors to cross the Pacific Ocean on the Plastiki (homage to the Kon Tiki, of course) using the ocean’s most prevalent waste as means of transportation.

More on fixedness here.

This philosophy radically challenges “over-population” as the root to all the current environmental problems. Its newness is in the concept that if we redesign the way we make things – transitioning from the current system of “cradle to grave” into a new cyclic system of “cradle to cradle” – then it wouldn’t matter how much we consume. That way, we can continue to consume, but after the products’ usage has ended, if designed correctly, they can become raw materials for future products.

Some call this a new industrial revolution. Only this time, doing it the right way.

Coming from SIT, and being hooked on its elegant principle of “the problem is the solution”, I reveled in this provocative concept. If products we consume will actually nourish the earth – so the more I consume, the more I do for my surrounding – it would really be a perfect world.

“The problem is the solution” is a specific principle behind the broader philosophy of Creative Problem Solving which turns win-lose relationships into win-wins. This is because problems can usually be defined as a conflict between two beneficial parameters. You’d like to maximize both, but the problem is that maximizing one means minimizing the other. This is a classic win-lose situation. An efficient system, according to traditional approaches, is when both parameters are optimized. Creative Problem Solving, on the other hand, seeks to creatively transcend this conflict to create a new win-win relationship between the system’s parameters. In SIT, we call this creating a Qualitative Change. The Cradle to Cradle concept addresses exactly this, or in Michael’s words: “it’s the difference between being efficient and being effective. Efficient means doing things right and effective is doing the right thing.” Recycling, which is actually down-cycling according to Michael, is only optimizing the system. But finding a way to make things different, so that 100% of them can serve as raw materials for the next cycle, is doing the right thing!

It’s not that radical if you think of nature, of course. There, the more a tree blooms, the more compost there will later be. For nature, it doesn’t matter how many apples the tree “produces”.

My second delight in Michael’s lecture was his cry to the designers in the audience to redesign, and to do it right this time!

But this time, my delight was short-lived, as it immediately reminded me of another rousing cry made by CEOs who declare innovation as a strategic engine for growth, but leave their poor R&D manager or marketer sitting in front of a whiteboard trying to think – “How the heck am I going to innovate?!”

As an SIT. facilitator, this is where we usually step in to help the R&D manager or marketer. And we do this by offering a structured innovation method that supplies the “How” for turning her CEO’s demand into a pipeline of successful new actions, products, strategies etc. It’s a little like having a muse on demand.

But then it made me wonder – is a similar set of tools available to the designers sitting in the audience around me? Even if a designer, system architect or a material engineer today wants to comply with the Cradle to Cradle guidelines and principles, turning “cradle to grave” products into “cradle to cradle” ones - how are they going to get there?

We often tell this story to demonstrate one of the creative templates used in SIT, called Task Unification. We define Task Unification as assigning a new and additional task to an existing resource. In Edison’s story, The existing resource was the energy of the visitors, normally used only to open the gate. It was given the additional task of operating the water pump.

These days, the same concept is used in the PlayPump, which uses the force of children turning a merry-go-round to pump water in areas with poor access to clean drinking water.

Not surprisingly, as sustainability becomes a key principle in the design and development of products, Task Unification is used to take advantage of existing resources, since they are becoming increasingly scarce. In many recent examples, however, Task Unification is used not to pump water, but to generate energy. Look, for example, at this revolving door. It contains an energy generator, so that when visitors use their energy (existing resource) to move the door, they also operate the generator (additional task) which creates and stores electricity for other uses. This same concept can also be seen in energy-generating floors in dance clubs, in subway ticket gates, and in energy-generating gym equipment. In all of these examples, someone’s energy is used to do both what it was originally intended to do (open a door, dance, play or exercise) and also to do something else (generate electricity or pump water).

Innovative ideas share common creative templates. This insight is one of the fundamental principles of SIT. So to us, it’s no wonder that a concept that has proven itself appears again and again in a variety of new “skins”. Although the Task Unification template is a universal tool for innovating, allowing the problem-solver to utilize almost any resource to perform almost any task, just this one application – using human energy to create electricity – leads to endless possibilities. Think of all the places where people push, pull, or turn “things”. How can you use this power to generate electricity, or create another useful, more sustainable, service? Opportunities to sustainably generate electricity increase significantly if you think also of other resources that move “things”. Usually we think of colossal forces such as the ocean, or wind power, but there is energy to harvest in more modest applications such as this EcoPower faucet, where the stream of water is used to charge the power supply of the faucet, removing the need to connect it to the building’s electrical system or to replace batteries.

As expert innovators, we believe that Task Unification is one of the keys to being both innovative and sustainable. (See Amnon’s post about Sustainability and Innovation.)

So take a look around you: what are your available resources? What other tasks can they perform?

The Israeli Innovation Community brings together, for networking and enrichment, top managers and individuals with an interest in innovation. The meetings are interactive, informal and down to earth, and always include discussions among the participants and with the lecturers.

Previous meetings featured:
· Chef Daniel Pekkar, who spoke about molecular cooking,
· Dr. Oren Zuckerman from the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), in a session with the participants’ children, on Scrath – Learning in the 21st Century,
· Seven leading Israeli industrial designers in a hands-on, prototype-building session on Design and Innovation,
· Vali Kulitz Munis, a Gelotologist  (more commonly known as Medical Clown) on the development of new professions,
· And many more.

The sustainability meeting was opened by Erez Zimhony, a consultant in water engineering, formerly the Innovation and IP manager of world leader drip-irrigation company Netafim. Erez gave a background overview of the environmental movement, from the romantic approach till the Kyoto protocols. The group then discussed in small teams their personal commitment to issues of sustainability, their organization’s respective commitments, and what more could be done.

The discussion was followed by a session led by Dr. Noam Gressel the CEO of Assif Strategies, which offers environmentally-sound, sustainable initiatives for businesses. Noam shared his views on sustainability, regulation, and technologies, and led a lively (i.e. emotional…) discussion. Many participants asked that we post Noam’s slides, and here they are for your review and comments.

Sustainability is a topic which we discussed here in the blog, and which Amnon Levav, SIT’s Managing Director, spoke about publicly in Greener by Design 2008. Amnon will also be a keynote speaker at the Spring 2009 Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) in Chicago, and will speak again in Greener by Design 2009 in San Francisco. Additionally, Yoni Stern, our VP of Business Development, talked about this topic at the Frost & Sullivan GIL conference, and will guest lecture this month about SIT’s approach to innovation in sustainability in the Darden School of Business.

Our theme there – we gave one plenary session and several of what we call “Innovation Flashes” in between the other sessions - was Sustainability & Innovation. When they hear the title, cynics often say “this year’s buzzword and last year’s.”, and I have to admit there is something in this remark. Still, for most companies, both them and their clients do want products to be sustainable, and competition does demand that offerings be more innovative. So in the end, not much choice these days but to aim for both S and I.

But why do we sense that a tension exists between innovation and sustainability?

Because the most intuitive way to innovate is by adding, by offering more: faster internet, additional features on your cell phone, an (even) larger SUV. Almost always, this entails more resources, higher emissions, a bigger battery, and consequently - less sustainability. Sustainability, therefore, is often seen as an additional hurdle that the would-be innovator must overcome. On the other hand, the easiest path to sustainability seems to lead to anti-innovation. Just eliminate the frills and extra features and immediately you become greener. Yet doesn’t this entail offering less to your customers, going back to the old version of your products? It seems therefore, that the traditional view of innovation is inherently anti-sustainability.

So can you give up innovation and focus on sustainability? Changing your product for the greener means rethinking the way your products are designed, manufactured, packaged and sold. But products tend to be designed as they are for good reasons. It is understandable therefore, that any proposed change will cause resistance. Creating a different product, then, demands overcoming or setting aside the assumptions that led to the current one. This requires a set of tools and abilities, that allow you to break your rigidity and do things differently; in other words – to innovate. Could there be an approach to innovation that is naturally conducive to sustainability? We obviously think there is, but here are some points to consider:

1. You need to “innovate inside the box” – start from what you already have, rather than what you would like to have.
2. Stay within the “Closed World” – counter to the prevalent view, effective ideas arise not by adding external elements, but rather when you can look at the existing ones from a different perspective.
3. Use “Task Unification” – identify an existing resource but then assign to it a novel task, not the one that the resource would normally fulfil.

These are, you will not be surprised to hear, three central rules of SIT (an approach, a principle, and a tool respectively, in our parlance). Truth is that we can’t claim to be pioneers in sustainability. We developed these and other principles out of purely innovation-led considerations. But we count ourselves very lucky that it turned out that our method is so perfectly adapted to creating sustainability, and that we have more and more opportunities to use it for this purpose.

Photo copyrights: ©iStockphoto.com/saturated