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?

These vehicles are decorated by the farmers themselves. They caught my eye because they are the only colorful objects in an otherwise arid landscape. I was curious why a poor farmer would invest time and money to decorate, sometimes elaborately, what is merely a functional vehicle. What are the origins of this phenomenon? Cultural? Commercial? Something else?

I asked around but no one had a good answer. So I decided to flip the question: if the farmers are spending this much money, what is the benefit that they get? This reminded me of a technique we use in SIT ideation processes, where we first manipulate a product in some unexpected way, and only then ask ourselves what the new version could be used for.

Here are some of the ideas that we came up with on the road to Petra:
1. Efficiency – the decorative element increases the height of the side railing of the pickup, which means that the farmer can carry more goods on each trip. (While this might explain why the railing is added, it does not explain the investment in the decoration.)
2. Branding – perhaps it helps the farmer create a recognizable image in the farmers’ market.
3. Symbol of success – maybe decorations are like notches on a belt; the more successful the farmer, the more elaborate the decorations on his truck.
4. Identification – what better way to find your truck in a big parking lot?

Once I came up with some possible benefits, additional ideas for new products came forward quite quickly, suggesting benefits also for other players in the market (such as the manufacturers or distributors of the trucks):

1. It is a great differentiator in the market. If all vehicles of a certain brand were colored and decorated, it could give them an interesting edge. And if we further develop this direction, the manufacturer could provide local types of decoration for each area in the world (Chinese, Indian, Latin American, Middle Eastern, Balkan etc.). By this, the car manufacturer / distributor can support a position in the market as the brand which understands best the local culture and actively supports the desires of local customers.

2. A company which sells other types of products for farmers (seeds for example) could give away a “decoration kit” to their loyal customers to send out a message such as – “with us, your yield will be so much better that you will need the extra storage space in your pickup”.

3. Vehicle manufacturers that offer such add-on kits actually enable their consumers to purchase a vehicle with extra storage space at a lower cost than a truck (creating an in-between size). Yes, we know we all want to sell bigger for more, but smaller with higher margin is also good.
So, can you think of other benefits of this product for the various players in this market? Any ideas for new offers or products?

Of course, if you are familiar with the local Jordanian culture, you are welcome to share with us your knowledge. Just don’t let the “real answer” stop your creative thinking…

In the article, Drew Boyd (Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson, one of SIT’s close friend and colleague), delineates some of the drawbacks of traditional brainstorming as it many times generates low quality ideas. Drew offers SIT’s method - a systematic method that combines creativity with a structured and predictable process as a more effective alternative for getting results.

Brainstorming according to Drew: “is the most overused and underperforming tool in business today… Among the problems are these: Throwing in an idea for public consideration generates fear of failure, and workers looking to advance their own interests often keep their best ideas to themselves until a more opportune time.”

One of the biggest challenges of brainstorming is filtering quality from quantity. At the end of a brainstorming session you are often left overwhelmed with too much information to sort from. Some of which are not relevant, others are too raw, and some are just not implementable.

My own experience as a facilitator in SIT taught me that our process is focused on generating qualitative data. At the end of an SIT process you are left with a much shorter, manageable, and easy to implement idea list. This is being done by incorporating two filters in the thinking process: the “should we do it” - market filter and the “can we do it” - feasibility filter. The filters force you to ask (and answer) for each pre-idea considered, what are the benefits of the idea (making sure it has a market) and check initial direction for implementation (making sure it can be done). Pre-ideas that fail any one of the filters are not furthered considered and do not mature to become ideas.

So how beneficial or implementable do you think the ideas in the Budget Brainstorming commercials?

To read the entire article that was published on the New York Times simply click here:

Consider the following joke: 
“My wife just ran off with my best friend.  Boy, do I miss him.”

Now, look at the following ad for Pedigree Dog Care products (Advertising agency: TBWA\Paris, France, Creative director: Erik Vervroegen)
“Beware of the Dog. He’s got terrible diarrhoea”

Both are funny. Now, what’s interesting is to ask, why?

For one, both use some kind of “twist” to create the punch – whether that’s a wry smile or a vocal laugh.

But what is a “twist” and how do you create it? As a mechanism, the twist works by messing with what we were expecting to happen. 

To understand the structure of a “twist” I consulted the “College of Comedy” for some assistance.  I learned that many jokes have three basic parts: The first part “sets up” a basic assumption in the audience’s mind, the second part reinforces this assumption, leading up to the “punch” in which this assumption is suddenly flipped on its head.  Interestingly, there’s a structure to jokes.  Miss one part of the joke, and well, you become the joke.

Let’s go back to the Pedigree “Beware the Dog” ad, and try and understand its structure using the SIT framework of Thema and Rhema.  In a nutshell, Thema refers to the part of a communication that “we already know” (our underlying assumption), and Rhema to the part that’ “is new to us”.  In this ad, I suggest the “punch” comes by making a slight change to the Thema.  “We all know that dog signs warn us of violent dogs” (That’s the Thema here).  By changing “violent” to “dog with diarrhoea” we cleverly upset the Thema, and in so doing, have created something that takes us by surprise.

So, like many good jokes, many “creative” ads work by subverting our expectations of what we think should happen. 

In many ways, comedians and creatives are both expert at toying with our expectations, and teasing our assumptions. Their originality notwithstanding, what’s interesting is that, consciously or not, they seem to use these structures or formulas repeatedly – because they work. What’s really amazing is that we the audience are oblivious to these structures, and fall for their effects, when well executed, most of the time.

I’ll end this post with an amazing campaign for the Buenos Aires Film Festival by La Comunidad featuring mustachioed men and clowns in a carpark.  Apart from the absurd genius of the scenarios, notice the underlying structure of the stepped approach to building up to the twist.  Enjoy.  

This is the second in a series of posts called “Creativity Uncovered: the amazing patterns behind amazing creative” in which I try and look for the structures underlying great ideas and executions.

(Dedicated to my friend Gili, one of the few who truly understand…)

 Friday morning, 6:45. I am just about to leave for my weekly cycling. I push the ‘on’ button on my computer to check e-mail. The computer starts up, but a couple of seconds later, instead of making the normal sounds of the operating system booting, it shuts down. My senses sharpen, adrenaline’s pumping. Like a wild animal sensing a threat, I enter troubleshooting mode.

Wearing my thinking cap, equipped with some experience and healthy logic, I apply rule number 1: “Perhaps the problem is not really a problem – confirm.” Naturally, I try to turn the computer on again. The same thing happens: I press the button, the computer starts running and 2-3 seconds after it shuts down.

The second rule, the “lion in the desert,” comes into play. The desert is divided into two regions, hardware and software. Although my understanding in both is minimal, I assume that the problem is not software related, as the computer is turning itself off immediately, before any software has had a chance to start up. So the lion is positioned in the hardware part of the desert (so I assume). But where, exactly?

The next rule I apply is: “seek problem in the last place that changed.” Having decided it is a hardware problem, I point at the immediate suspect: the on/off button. Recently, the button feels grimy and there’s friction when pushed.

Focused on a specific location, I apply the two following rules: “hypothesize the cause” and “propose test to confirm or refute the hypothesis.” My theory is simple: because of friction, a “regular” push is not enough, as the grime obstructs the electrical circuit. That is why after I release the button (2-3 seconds) the computer goes off. The test to verify or refute my assumption is simple: press the button and hold it in for a while so the electric circuit closes properly. Curious to see if my hypothesis is correct, I press and hold the button…The computer wakes up and 2-3 seconds later shuts down again.

Disappointed, but not desponded, I conclude the problem is elsewhere. If it is indeed in the hardware, it could be the power pack (70 NIS, not including VAT and installation). Than again, what if it is the software after all? My next rule says: “don’t give up, come up with a new hypothesis.” This rule is not very easy to apply, so instead, I use the phone.

Although it is still very early, I call my friend Gili and proudly describe the logical pathway I took: how I concluded that the problem is in the hardware; how I came up with the assumption that it is the on/off button and how I disproved it with a simple and elegant test. “And now,” I offer, “all that is left is to think of something else…”

Gili smiles modestly (well, I can’t see him, but still I can “hear” him smile) and says that my analysis is mostly right, however it is nevertheless flawed.

“The problem might very well be the on/off button, but the problem is not that it releases after several seconds. Quite the opposite, it probably stays pushed in.” Here, he goes into a detailed explanation about how the button works: It is not a regular on/off switch, but a momentary push-button. The moment it is pressed, the computer turns on, but if it is pushed for longer the computer shuts down.

I realize that since I did not know how the button works, the experiment I came up with was entirely off the marker. Gili interrupts my flow of thoughts: “I assume that because of the grime around the button, it gets stuck pushed in and after 2-3 seconds shuts the computer down. To test this, try giving it a very light push so the button doesn’t go all the way in and see what happens.” Three seconds later it was obvious that Gili was right. Halleluiah, the computer was working.

To conclude my story, allow me to offer the most important troubleshooting rule: “you need to really know and understand the system in order to solve a problem (unless you have Gili’s phone number).”

Photo Copyrights:© iStockphoto.com/evirgen

Since the company is not a client of ours, I wasn’t directly affected by this decision, but still, I was curious to understand what stood behind it. Another victim of “the Situation”, I said to myself, but to my surprise he went on to explain: “We have so many good ideas now that we need to pause with innovation and focus on implementation.”

This approach is, in my eyes, a symptom of one of the biggest and most common misconceptions in the field; that innovation is all about coming up with ideas of what to do (products, services, whatever it is you do). The corollary is, obviously, that once you have these ideas you don’t need to be bothered with innovation any longer, all you need is to “just” implement.

In reality, the situation is nearly the opposite. The level of innovation invested in implementation is not lower, and very often higher, than required for coming up with the ideas in the first place. But this is hardly news for anyone, such as the manager mentioned above, who is involved in the day-to-day of innovation.

So why is the mistake so common? It is due, I think, to the fact that people tend to see innovation as a type of activity rather than a quality of performing activities; people see innovation as an answer to the question “what are you doing?” while in fact it is the answer to “how are you doing, whatever it is that you are engaged in?”

In September, I was talking to a lady who is a director-level manager in a large company. “The last thing I need now is innovation,” she said, ” We’ve just finished a successful innovation project, resulting in an amazing new product idea, which I’ve been trying to convince my VP for the past 3 months to OK, but with no success. What’s the use of innovating if they are going to kill your ideas anyway?”

To me, it sounded like what she most needed was innovation. From our point of view, this was a classical case of an urgent need for some problem solving, the problem obviously being the need to convince a stubborn VP. And examples of this type are abundant: a VP who doesn’t need innovation, because he “just” needs to get his division organized since they keep failing at implementing the great ideas in their pipeline; and of course, the innumerable CEOs who can’t talk about innovation now, because due to “the Situation” they see a decrease in sales, profits disappearing, and immediate danger to cash flow.

My conclusion: all those people who are too _______ [busy, overworked, full of ideas, engaged in a huge project] to innovate, are precisely those who are most in need of a change in the way they are handling whichever “too” they are immersed in, i.e. they are in dire need of innovation.

Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention!

Maybe the police and other authorities should think more like criminals to become more effective in their struggle against them?
I wrote all this as an introduction to the story I’d like to share with you today: It has become standard practice for companies to install an alarm system that is connected to a security center with a response unit as a prerequisite for receiving insurance. If a burglary takes place, a signal is sent to the center and security guards rush to see what’s going on. This, of course, creates some difficulties for the burglars.
Recently I heard a very interesting story about how burglars figured out ways of overcoming this new obstacle (two people are needed for this to be successful).

They start by breaking the lock in the usual way, and the first burglar goes in and starts collecting the loot.
A signal is (as expected) sent to the security center at this point. Stay tuned to see what happens next…
The second guy takes a NEW lock and locks the door from the outside so that it seems as though nothing has happened.
When the security guards arrive, they look around, see that everything is OK, report to the center, curse the systems that have so many false alarms, and return to the office.

At the same time, our friends take their time finishing off the job and smile all the way to the next job.
Those of you who have some SIT experience would probably identify here a clear SIT tool: Multiplication - solve a problem by adding to the problem world an object that is similar to an existing one.
This idea is especially interesting because we bring in an object that seems at first to be an obstacle - the lock.

This is, of course, part of SIT philosophy: when you think you should remove something, rather think about bringing in more of whatever it is you want to remove, and when you think you should bring in more of something, think about removing it.

Well … What is my definition of innovation? I suddenly realized that in 10 years of teaching innovation & facilitating innovation processes I have never thought of a definition for the darn thing …

The Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines innovation as the introduction of something new or a new idea, method, or device. I believe you’ll agree with me that at least for our purposes (we innovation-enthusiasts) this is a tad too wide. For one, it completely ignores the value of that “new idea, method, or device.”

The MONASH University Marketing Dictionary, on the other hand, defines innovation as the introduction of a product which is new to both the company and its customers; a new-to-the-world product. This may be a bit too narrow. It addresses only product innovation and ignores other types of innovation like process innovation, organizational innovation etc. Furthermore, it addresses only innovations in the products itself – disregarding the production process, type and occasion of use etc.

I could try to generate an awkward, list-like definition of innovation that would check all the necessary boxes – but this is not what I am looking for. I am looking for something that would be a little more meaningful, not to say inspiring…

As I was contemplating this, a strange thought started formulating in my mind. Innovation is invariably about bending, if not breaking, the rules. It is about change – not repetition; about daring – not submission. So maybe, it’s also about exceptions and not definitions.

Harry Potter, the exceptional wizard who captured the imagination of millions around the world, is credited for “a certain disregard for rules”. Those of you who know him will probably agree that it is the combination of audacity, persistence and that certain disregard for rules that allows Harry to excel in the real world far more than in the academic world, for example.

So maybe this is as close as we can get to the essence of innovation – a cocktail of courage, diligence and flexible attitude towards rules and assumptions. This mix is necessary not only in the ideation phase, but also throughout the long and winding road from a valuable idea to a valued product, process, or service. Those who are familiar with the tortuous nature of that road will surely value the help of a wizard…

So what are we left with? What is the definition of innovation? Do we really need such a definition? Or maybe when we try to define innovation we actually confine it?
It seems that there are many aspects of innovation that are easy enough to define. But there is also something else; something elusive and mysterious; something that lives just outside of our rules and definitions. Maybe the words of Freddy Mercury say it best, and indeed “it’s a kind of magic.”