Issuu on Google+

PREVIEW VERSION

Innovation Methods Mapping was inspired by the spirit of original open innovation pioneers:

ALEX F. OSBORN L.H.D. SIDNEY J. PARNES Ph.D.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

2

Innovation Methods Mapping

BY HUMANTIFIC FOR OPEN INNOVATION CONSORTIUM PUBLISHED BY O PEN INNOVATION CO NSORTIUM Copyright 2011-2013, OPEN Innovation Consortium & Humantific. All Rights Reserved. Copyrights of all process models included in this study remain with copyright holders. INQUIRIES: Send email to: methodsmapping (at) openinnovationconsortium (dot) org

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

3

Innovation Methods Mapping

SPECIAL THANKS! We want to sincerely thank all those whose process models appear in this workbook. Thanks for sharing in the spirit of expanding present understanding and future innovation. OPEN Innovation Consortium

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

4

Innovation Methods Mapping

“In this social media/social economy era, we are seeing tremendous renewed interest in the art, science, design and business of collaboration. If we think of information as raw material for innovative collaboration and network technology as connective tissue, we can think of process models as frameworks for disciplined orchestration.� Humantific Team

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

5

Innovation Methods Mapping

METHODS MAPPING BUZZ “A masterful piece of work.” Dr. SID PARNES & BEA PARNES Applied Creativity Pioneers

PETER JONES, PH.D. Founder REDESIGN

DR. BETTINA VON STAMM Director & Catalyst INNOVATION LEADERSHIP FORUM

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

“It seems every new decade sweeps in a new wave of design methods, the latest wave bringing design frameworks of scale and social complexity. The Innovation Methods Mapping is perhaps the first organized effort to demonstrate the relationships and patterns over the historical timeline. The work reveals the underlying inspirations connecting early creative processes to systems thinking to service and organizational design. The Mapping glues these together with a consistent design language that expresses the fundamental patterns in elegant simplicity. This design language enables the reader to select the right methods for complex situations or to develop consistent applications across methods. Few other resources – if any – give designers such an expressive capacity and understanding across methods.” “What a fantastic and successful effort in bringing together the many-fold strands that form our understanding of innovation today…A must-have for anyone who wants to make sense of the dispersed, disparate, and ever-growing landscape of innovation ”

6

Innovation Methods Mapping

ALEX J. RYAN PH.D. Associate BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON CENTER FOR THE APPLICATION OF DESIGN

LUIS ARNAL Managing Partner INSITUM

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

"Innovation Methods Mapping provides a long-overdue guide to the diversity of methods and methodologies developed spanning more than 80 years in the related but often disjointed fields of creative problem solving and design. The collation of 50 distinct innovative thinking methods is reason enough to read this book. However, the unique contribution of this study is the multi-perspective analytical framework that enables comparative analysis of innovation methods. Itself an embodiment of the principles of information design, the analytical framework displays a rich, ten-dimensional visualization of each method, enabling the reader to rapidly make sense of the purpose, scope, strengths, and limitations of each method. This allows the reader to move beyond the superficial similarities and differences in the way different innovation methods are visually depicted, to appreciate more fundamental differences in values, roles, weight of effort, and embedded assumptions. The subsequent analysis yields important insights for both the practical application of innovation methods as well as the future of design thinking and innovation.� "This well documented and insightful collection of innovation processes fills a gap in the body of knowledge around the innovation discipline. It is a homage to all those involved in having shaped this practice, but also as a tool to enlighten many future practitioners. Knowing where we come from allows us to understand where we should be heading towards.� 7

Innovation Methods Mapping

METHODS MAPPING BUZZ

RAMON SANGÜESA, PH.D. Partner COCREATING CULTURES

DR. ROBIN WOOD President THE RENAISSANCE2 FOUNDATION

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

“This book opens up an incredibly clear and useful framework for exploring a fascinating world systematically. It helps you make sense of a rich treasure of creative work. Methods Mapping revealed for us new patterns that helped us connect our ways of working with similar methods and inspired us to venture in creating new ones. More than mapping, it is also a recombining machine for your own creativity processes.” “Innovation Methods Mapping is a valuable companion for the creative, design or process expert as well as the prospective client or stakeholder community for innovation methods. This beautifully designed, easy-to-read book demonstrates both the common core of activities that are essential to any innovation or design process, as well as the great diversity of methods available to practitioners. Most importantly, the authors recognize that there is simply no "one size fits all" silver bullet, enabling the reader to consider which methods are most appropriate for their specific needs and context. A welcome addition to the innovator's bookshelf, and also an important first step in rethinking design and innovation themselves for our hyper complex, 21st century global challenges.”

8

Innovation Methods Mapping

UDAY DANDAVATE Co-founder & CEO SONICRIM

DR. TERRENCE LOVE Director LOVE SERVICES PTY LTD

DR. TIIU POLDMA Vice Dean, Graduate Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

“This book serves one important purpose - it provides documented evidence that design thinking and innovation process can be framed and facilitated in multiple ways. At the same time, the book is structured to help readers consider a great variety of frameworks through a template for comparison. The book will serve as an important reference resource for those involved in educating clients of design and innovation at the fuzzy front end.”

"For innovation professionals, this is a useful collection of design innovation and creativity processes. They are graphically well described and with excellent commentary. I recommend this book to designers and design students in any discipline.”

“This book is an impressive, relevant and necessary overview of innovative methods… This exploration situates the past and present, while providing a potential landscape for exploring possibilities. An exciting resource for practitioners, professors and students alike.”

9

Innovation Methods Mapping

ABOUT THIS BOOK

About OPEN Innovation Consortium Open Innovation Consortium was founded in 2009 by a diverse group of seasoned co-creation professionals from numerous organizations operating in several countries. Our mission is to advocate, inspire and contribute to the ongoing evolution of innovation process design and innovation related tool-making in a continuously changing world. Consortium Founders: Martha Batorski, KT Conner, Tony Fross, Janet Getto, Elizabeth Pastor, Gene Recker, GK VanPatter. Consortium Inspirational Champions: Alex Osborn & Sidney J. Parnes.

About Humantific Located in New York City and founded in 2002 by Elizabeth Pastor & GK VanPatter, Humantific is a leading sensemaking-based changemaking consultancy. We work with organizational leaders to make sense of complexity, tackle complicated fuzzy challenges involving multiple constituents, and build team-based sensemaking-changemaking leadership capabilities. In our work with organizations, we have seen and evaluated hundreds of innovation initiatives, strategies, models and tools. Research, Authorship & Design: Humantific Innovation Methods Mapping Project Team: GK VanPatter, Liv Marit Naess, Elizabeth Pastor, Valentina Miosuro, Annie Hill, Jackie Closurdo.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

10

Innovation Methods Mapping

SYNOPSIS This workbook presents a new kind of methods analysis framework applied to 50 innovation process model examples spanning a period of 80+ years. Embedded in the framework is a new form of innovation process literacy, designed to enhance understanding of historical and current process models, as well as inform future process design.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

11

Innovation Methods Mapping

INSPIRATIONAL HISTORICAL QUOTES

“The thinking mind finds it easier to judge than to create. Nearly all of our education tends to develop our critical faculty. And our experience likewise builds up our judgment. The more we exercise our judgment the less likely we are to exercise our imagination. By overuse of our judicial power we may even cramp our creative power.” ALEX F. OSBORN, L.H.D. APPLIED IMAGINATION, 1953

“Obviously there is an urgency for developing in people the ability to live with constant change in a dynamic society.” SIDNEY J. PARNES PhD. CREATIVE BEHAVIOR GUIDEBOOK, 1967

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

12

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTENDED AUDIENCES This book is designed to fill what the OPEN Innovation Consortium perceives to be a void in the field of innovation process knowledge. As a foundation for understanding, we assume readers already have a high level of process knowledge, so this book is not going to be suitable for everyone. Our intended audiences include: Advanced practitioner leaders Advanced graduate & post-graduate education leaders Advanced organizational leaders Advanced social change leaders Adventuresome innovation process designers

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

13

Innovation Methods Mapping

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

Innovation Methods Mapping

CONTENTS

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

15

Innovation Methods Mapping

10 WAYS TO USE THIS BOOK Recognizing that readers have different information processing styles, this book can be read in numerous ways: 1. 

Read through from front to back or from back to front.

2. 

Begin viewing process examples by Group on Page 43

3. 

Read the Project Background and Purpose on Pages 24

4. 

Jump to the explanation of the Analysis Framework on Page 31

5. 

Jump to the Process Models Analysis that begins on Page 43

6. 

Jump to the Think Balance / Emphasis Analysis that begins on Page 157

7. 

Jump to the Terminology Analysis that begins on Page 165

8. 

Jump to the 25 Key Findings that begin on Page 173

9. 

Jump to the Design Implications that begin on Page 201

10.  Read the Glossary of Terms that begins on Page 206 Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

16

Innovation Methods Mapping

CONTENTS OVERVIEW SPECIAL THANKS........................................................................................................................................................ 4 ABOUT THIS BOOK ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 SYNOPSIS....................................................................................................................................................................11 INTENDED AUDIENCES................................................................................................................................................13 10 WAYS TO USE THIS BOOK.......................................................................................................................................16

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 CONSORTIUM BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 24 PROJECT PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................................. 25 WHY THIS STUDY IS DIFFERENT ............................................................................................................................. 27 WHY THIS STUDY IS IMPERFECT ............................................................................................................................ 28 JARGON WATCH....................................................................................................................................................... 29

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................................31 PROCESS MODELS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................43 THINK BALANCE / EMPHASIS ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................157 TERMINOLOGY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................165 25 KEY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................................173 10 DESIGN IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 201 WHATS NEXT?........................................................................................................................................................... 205 GLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................................................................................................. 207 Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

17

Innovation Methods Mapping

INNOVATION METHODS TIMELINE GROUP 1:

CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS) PROCESS MODELS

1926

2007

Wallas Creativity Process

Fraley CPS Design Thinking Process

GROUP 2:

DESIGN PROCESS MODELS

1964

2009

Mesavoric Design Process Model

Beaumont Iterative Design Process

1986

2012

R. Cooper Stage-Gate Model

Google Ventures Product Design Process

GROUP 3:

PRODUCT DESIGN PROCESS MODELS

1989

2010

Scheuing & Johnson Service Design Process

Connect Consortium Innovation Process

GROUP 4:

SERVICE DESIGN PROCESS MODELS

GROUP 5:

ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION PROCESS MODELS

1979

2008

MG Taylor Process

No-Where Group Innovation Process

2006 2011

GROUP 6:

SOCIAL INNOVATION PROCESS MODELS Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

Structured Dialogic Design 18

Design Against Crime Innovation Process Innovation Methods Mapping

INNOVATION METHODS BY GROUP GROUP 1: CREATIVE

PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS) PROCESS MODELS ......... PAGE 45

1.  WALLACE CREATIVITY PROCESS .......................................................................... 1926 ........................... 47 2.  OSBORN’S CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS (VERSION 1.0) ...............1953 ........................... 49 3.  ALTSHULLER TRIZ PROCESS ........................................................................ Circa 1956 ........................... 51 4.  PARNES CPS SPIRAL MODEL (VERSION 2.1) ........................................................ 1967 ........................... 53 5.  OSBORN-PARNES CPS MODEL PROCESS (VERSION 2.2) .................................. 1976 ........................... 55 6.  OSBORN-PARNES CPS PROCESS MODEL (VERSION 2.2) ................................. 1976 ........................... 57 7.  BASADUR SIMPLEX CPS PROCESS MODEL ......................................................... 1983 ........................... 59 8.  ISAKSEN TREFFINGER CPS PROCESS MODEL (VERSION 3.0) .......................... 1985 ........................... 61 9.  ISAKSEN TREFFINGER CPS PROCESS MODEL (VERSION 4.0) .......................... 1992 ........................... 63 10.  ISAKSEN DORVAL CPS PROCESS MODEL (VERSION 5.0) .................................. 1992 ........................... 65 11.  MORRISON CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL ............................................ 1992 ........................... 67 12.  PLSEK CREATIVE THINKING CYCLE ...................................................................... 1996 ........................... 69 13.  CREATIVE EDUCATION FOUNDATION CPS PROCESS MODEL ................. Circa 2000 ........................... 71 14.  WORLD CAFÉ PROCESS MODEL ............................................................................ 2005 ........................... 73 15.  PUCCIO MURDOCK MANCE CPS PROCESS MODEL ............................................ 2006 ........................... 75 16.  HURSON PRODUCTIVE THINKING MODEL ............................................................ 2007 ........................... 77 17.  FRALEY CPS DESIGN THINKING PROCESS .......................................................... 2007 ........................... 79

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

19

Innovation Methods Mapping

INNOVATION METHODS BY GROUP GROUP 2: DESIGN

PROCESS MODELS ............................................................ PAGE 81

18.  MESAVORIC DESIGN PROCESS MODEL ............................................................... 1964 ........................... 83 19.  ARCHER DESIGN PROCESS MODEL ...................................................................... 1964 ........................... 85 20.  FULLER DESIGN SCIENCE PLANNING PROCESS ................................................. 1967 ........................... 87 21.  JOHN CHRIS JONES DESIGN PROCESS ................................................................ 1970 ........................... 89 22.  RITTEL FIRST GENERATION MODEL ...................................................................... 1972 ........................... 91 23.  KOBERG & BAGNALL SEVEN-STEP INNOVATION PROCESS .............................. 1972 ........................... 93 24.  IIT INNOVATION PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................... 2003 ........................... 95 25.  IDEO DESIGN THINKING PROCESS ........................................................................ 2004 ........................... 97 26.  UK DESIGN COUNCIL DESIGN PROCESS MODEL ................................................ 2005 ........................... 99 27.  D. SCHOOL DESIGN THINKING PROCESS ............................................................. 2007 ......................... 101 28.  D. SCHOOL’S DESIGN THINKING PROCESS ................................................ Circa 2009 ......................... 103 29.  STANFORD & BERKELEY DESIGN THINKING CYCLE ........................................... 2008 ......................... 105 30.  BEAUMONT ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS ........................................................... 2009 ......................... 107 GROUP 3: PRODUCT

DESIGN PROCESS MODELS ......................................... PAGE 109

31.  R. COOPER STAGE-GATE MODEL .......................................................................... 1986 ......................... 111 32.  UNITED TECHNOLOGIES INNOVATION PROCESS ............................................... 2000 ......................... 113 33.  NORTH KARELIAN UNIVERSITY INNOVATION PROCESS .......................... Circa 2010 ......................... 115 34.  GOOGLE VENTURES PRODUCT DESIGN PROCESS .................................. Circa 2012 ......................... 117

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

20

Innovation Methods Mapping

INNOVATION METHODS BY GROUP GROUP 4: SERVICE

DESIGN PROCESS MODELS .......................................... PAGE 119

35.  SCHEUING & JOHNSON SERVICE DESIGN PROCESS ......................................... 1989 ......................... 121 36.  NEW SERVICE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE .................................................................. 2000 ......................... 123 37.  FROG SERVICE DESIGN PROCESS .............................................................. Circa 2004 ......................... 125 38.  EVENSON & DUBBERLY SERVICE DESIGN PROCESS ........................................ 2005 ......................... 127 39.  ENGINE SERVICE DESIGN PROCESS ........................................................... Circa 2008 ......................... 129 40.  STICKDORN SERVICE DESIGN PROCESS ............................................................. 2010 ......................... 131 41.  COPENHAGEN LIVING LAB INNOVATION PROCESS ................................... Circa 2010 ......................... 133 42.  CONNECT CONSORTIUM INNOVATION PROCESS ..................................... Circa 2010 ......................... 135 GROUP 5: ORGANIZATIONAL

INNOVATION PROCESS MODELS ................ PAGE 137

43.  MG TAYLOR PROCESS ............................................................................................ 1979 ......................... 139 44.  LEAN SIX SIGMA PROCESS ..................................................................................... 1986 ......................... 141 45.  NO-WHERE GROUP INNOVATION PROCESS ........................................................ 2008 ......................... 143 GROUP 6: SOCIAL

INNOVATION PROCESS MODELS ................................... PAGE 145

46.  STRUCTURED DIALOGIC DESIGN .......................................................................... 2006 ......................... 147 47.  INSTITUTE FOR FUTURE FORESIGHT TO INSIGHT TO ACTION PROCESS ....... 2009 ......................... 149 48.  MINDLAB CO-CREATION PROCESS ....................................................................... 2010 ......................... 151 49.  AUSTRALIAN CENTRE SOCIAL INNOVATION PROCESS ..................................... 2011 ......................... 153 50.  DESIGN AGAINST CRIME INNOVATION PROCESS ...................................... Circa 2011 ......................... 155 Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

21

Innovation Methods Mapping

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTRODUCTION

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

23

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTRODUCTION

CONSORTIUM BACKGROUND •  As a collaborative non-profit think-tank, the focus of the OPEN Innovation Consortium is to explore the subject of open innovation as it applies most broadly to research, history, knowledge, methods, exercises, models, tools, techniques, systems and futures. •  The consortium draws from the 150+ years of combined co-creation and innovation leadership experience of its diverse members. •  The OPEN Innovation Consortium recognizes that open innovation as an idea has its roots in the 1940s and 50s rather than in 2003. This study builds on that awareness. •  The ultimate goal of the consortium is to advocate, inspire and contribute to the ongoing evolution of innovation process design and innovation related tool-making in a continuously changing world. For more information on the consortium see: www.openinnovationconsortium.org

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

24

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT PURPOSE •  This two year long study has been created and is being shared for educational purposes. •  In this study we are sharing a view across 50 innovation process model examples spanning an 80+ year period from 1926 to 2013. •  Most process models included can be found on the internet so no formal permissions were requested prior to inclusion in the study. Thanks again to all contributors! •  The focus of this study is not to judge the effectiveness of various methods but rather to better understand methods across the timeline of history in terms of knowledge evolution, design and architectural construction. •  As an OPEN Innovation Consortium initiative, the goal of this project is to help move the art, science and design of innovation process modeling forward into the 21st century. Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

25

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTRODUCTION

WHY THIS STUDY IS DIFFERENT: •  Includes original process drawings rather than redrawn depictions •  Includes a 10 part analysis framework to help others look at process models in new ways •  Analysis framework is based in real world practice experience not academic theories •  Presents a view across multiple fields of knowledge •  Spans an 80+ year period •  Unpacks and defuzzes graphic depictions of innovation process •  Introduces next era innovation process analytics such as Think Balance, Language Mode, Roles, Starting Points, Values and Behaviors •  Intends to be inclusive Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

26

Innovation Methods Mapping

•  Presents 10 views that are key to moving beyond a superficial understanding of innovation process construction •  Is focused on de-mystifying the innovation process landscape rather than promoting one process over another •  Includes Terminology Analysis •  Includes Think Balance/Emphasis Analysis •  Presents 25 Key Findings •  Includes summary of Design Implications •  Presents possibility of combining knowledge from various fields •  Is part of an ongoing stream of innovation research

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

27

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTRODUCTION

WHY THIS STUDY IS IMPERFECT: •  This collection of innovation process models represents a small sample and is not meant to be exhaustive. Many more innovation process models exist in the world and this research is ongoing. Book 2 is already underway. •  For some models, there exists extensive material in the public realm in addition to the model itself, while in other cases little beyond the model itself was found. •  The analysis team has deepest knowledge of applied creativity thinking and design thinking. •  Gaining deep understanding of activities within each process is difficult for anyone to do by analyzing graphic depictions of models. •  Considerable tacit knowledge exists around many process models that is difficult to capture and appreciate by looking at explicit materials. Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

28

Innovation Methods Mapping

INTRODUCTION

JARGON WATCH •  This study surveys 50 historical and contemporary process models including a summary of the many terms used to describe various steps. Our role here is not to place judgments on various terminologies but rather to present the landscape of terms in its entirety in hope that the survey might in one way or another inform future process creation. •  The analysis framework contains considerations not seen before in any literature. In some cases new terms have been created to introduce the considerations for the first time. An example would be Language Mode. No such consideration has been set in place previously, and thus no such term has ever existed before. •  The goal of the framework is not to create new jargon for the sake of jargon-making, but rather to give voice to important considerations not previously in the mix. We are certainly well aware of jargon watch.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

29

Innovation Methods Mapping

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

Innovation Methods Mapping

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

31

Innovation Methods Mapping

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW •  The analysis framework utilized in this OPEN Innovation Consortium study was created by Humantific, based on our experience as practitioners viewing hundreds of innovation, creativity and design thinking related initiatives, theories, tools, documents and methods. •  The analysis framework is focused on 10 views that have been determined by Humantific to be important in understanding innovation process today across multiple knowledge arenas. •  The framework acknowledges that many approaches to innovation process design have existed historically and still exist today. •  The framework unpacks each process from its original graphic depiction in order to better understand the activities within. Questions regarding the analysis framework can be sent to: collaborationanalytics (at) humantific (dot) com

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

32

Innovation Methods Mapping

•  The analysis framework introduces advanced considerations such as think balance, behavior, language mode, starting point, roles and values. These considerations are designed to significantly enhance the way innovation processes are considered today and tomorrow. •  The framework not only provides a new basis for reflection and analysis, it can inform future innovation process design as well. •  Among the ten views in the framework, we are most interested in the question of Think Balance, or emphasis, as indicated in Views 2 and 3. We know that considerations of Think Balance cascade beyond process into every aspect of organizations including team dynamics and corporate values. •  In addition to this study, the framework is used by Humantific as part of a suite of tools focused on building and improving team-based innovation leadership capabilities in organizations. Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

33

Innovation Methods Mapping

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

10 VIEWS EXPLAINED The analysis framework is focused on 10 views important in understanding innovation process today across multiple knowledge arenas.

VIEW 1

Process mapped to Step-by-Step

VIEW 2

Process mapped to Hemispheres view

VIEW 3

Process mapped to Quadrants View

VIEW 4

Process Type

VIEW 5

Process Starting Point

VIEW 1 shows the process unpacked from its graphic depiction and mapped as a Step-by-Step view.

VIEW 6

VIEW 2 shows the process components mapped to the two Hemispheres view on continuous innovation. (Defined on the page 38)

VIEW 7

VIEW 3 shows the process components mapped to the four part Quadrants view on continuous innovation. (Defined on the page 40)

VIEW 8

VIEW 4 shows the type of process, noted as Zone, Script or combined Zone/Script.

VIEW 9

VIEW 5 shows the starting point of the process. Does it begin upstream or downstream from a framed brief?

VIEW 10

Process Language Modes

Process Use

Presence of Differentiated Roles

Presence of Behaviors

Presence of Values

VIEW 6 shows the Language Mode of the process. Content (C) & Process (P) Mixed or Split.

VIEW 7 shows the context use of the process, whether the process is intended for use by individuals or groups.

VIEW 8 indicates whether or not Roles are graphically indicated as part of the process.

VIEW 9 indicates whether or not Behaviors are graphically indicated as part of the process.

VIEW 10 indicates whether or not Values are graphically indicated as part of the process.

METHOD MAPPING ANALYSIS TOOL COPYRIGHT Š 2011-2013 HUMANTIFIC

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

34

Innovation Methods Mapping

•  NOTE: This preview version of Innovation Methods Mapping does not contain the 135 page analysis. • 

If you would like to be placed on the book preorder list send an email to: methodsmapping@openinnovationconsortium.org

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

35

Innovation Methods Mapping

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

Innovation Methods Mapping

25 KEY FINDINGS WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS

InsightLab | StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab

37

Copyright Š 2009 Humantific Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FINDING

1 Looking across 80+ years of history, it is evident that a wide variety of innovation process models have been created since the 1920s by individuals, organizations, experts and non-experts. In that diverse mix, it is not difficult to find many commonalities and many differences. While the analysis in this study reveals patterns across many models, no one unified theory of innovation process exists. Many diverse perspectives remain in the mix today.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

38

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

2 In this study we noted 4 active primary innovation process community streams with numerous subsets within. Each stream has its own history, pioneers, protocols, heroes, politics, values, thought leaders, strengths and weaknesses. Some of the communities are huge while others remain relatively small. Some are more well known publicly than others. 1.  Applied Creativity, (Also known as Creative Problem Solving, (CPS), Creative Intelligence) 2.  Design (Encompasses Design 1,2,3,4, as per NextDesign Geographies Framework) 3.  Dialogic Design (Also known as Structured Dialogic Design) 4.  Algorithmic Innovation (Also known as TRIZ and TIPS)

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

39

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

3 Innovation process history suggests that the timeline and trajectory of applied creativity process evolution has been significantly different from that of design. We recognize that design thinking and applied creativity thinking are two parallel knowledge arenas. To fully appreciate the history of innovation process evolution, it is necessary to look across multiple community development streams. Few cross stream method studies exist.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

40

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

4 Since the 1950s graphic depictions have often been used to differentiate one innovation process model from another. Two process models that look different graphically might contain the same step or steps. Two that look similar might be significantly different in terms of activities within. Key to understanding historical innovation process evolution is to look underneath the graphic depictions.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

41

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

5 Models in this study indicate that design process models created prior to 2010-2013 have tended to be situational, tactical and discipline specific (product design, service design, experience design, software design, sustainability design, etc.), while applied creativity process models (CPS) have intended to be universal, meta and multi-disciplinary. These historical tendencies translate to fundamental differences today in terms of orientation to process by the design and applied creativity (CPS) communities.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

42

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

6 The first front end 6 phases or steps of applied creativity process have been identified and relatively stable since the 1960s: Mess Finding, Fact Finding, Problem Finding, Idea Finding, Solution Finding, Acceptance Finding. Over the years, many techniques have been added or subtracted in order to better undertake the constantly changing actions inside the various steps. Despite being renamed and/or re-sequenced, most steps in creative problem solving and design process have been part of the public domain for decades.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

43

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

7 We found that 3 basic types of innovation process models exist: •  Script models prescribe a series of detailed actions or behaviors, often with the caveat that nonlinearity is intended. •  Zone models are more like scaffolds or frameworks inside which many action options are possible, often without any behavior prescribed. •  Script/Zone models combine the two.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

44

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

8 Not apparent in visual depictions of innovation process, some models are designed for use by experts in consulting while other processes are designed for use by everyday persons engaged in change making, problem finding, problem solving inside organizations and/or societies. Consulting models tend to assume multiple reporting out (Gaining Acceptance) cycles. In non-consultant, layperson innovation models, Gaining Acceptance might be one formal step.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

45

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

9 Most product and service design process models seen in this study have embedded assumptions that the challenges being faced are product or service related, and that solution outcomes will be products or services. These built-in assumptions place product and service process models downstream from the more upstream oriented CPS models. In highly complex, fuzzy situations at the scale of organizations and societies, the orientation of presuming up front what the challenge and solution paths are has become obsolete.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

46

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

10 Most applied creativity (CPS) process models contain graphically depicted behavior signals: diverge <, converge >, and deferral of judgment, while historically most design process models do not. This historical appearance and nonappearance represents fundamental differences in orientation to behavior in the design and applied creativity communities of practice still today.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

47

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

11 The basic cross-disciplinary behavior skills within applied creativity (CPS) process models (diverge, converge, deferral of judgment), have not significantly changed since they were first identified in the 1950s by Dr. JP Guilford, Dr. Sid Parnes and other applied creativity pioneers. The identification and integration of those behaviors into process has been part of the public domain for decades. Today, those behaviors appear and are taught as integral parts of numerous thinking systems. What is common across many process configurations are those underlying behaviors.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

48

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

12 Language Mode has historically been a hidden dimension of innovation processes. Most innovation process models created prior to the 2010-2013 era do not contain graphic depiction of Language Mode. Mixed Language Mode is when content and process are combined in one role, often an assumption in Design process. Split Language Mode is when content and process are separated in roles, often an assumption in CPS process. Large complex organizational and societal challenges involving multi-stakeholders often require the application of Split Language Mode.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

49

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

13 The starting points of the various process models seen in this study vary significantly. CPS process models tend to begin further upstream than most design process models. Design process models most often start with a â&#x20AC;&#x153;briefâ&#x20AC;? which is a framed or semi-framed challenge. Today these starting point differences have significant implications in highly complex organizational, and societal situations where often no defined brief exists.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

50

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

14 Most process models seen in this study do not visually depict the proportion of time spent in each phase. While phases may appear similar graphically in size, some phases might in fact represent the majority of time and effort to be expended. This lack of visual clarity often hinders the understanding of the time and emphasis aspects of innovation process.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

51

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

15 Roles to be undertaken while using the process are not graphically indicated in most of the models seen in this study. In Split Language Mode, there are separate content and process roles. In Mixed Language Mode, this is not the case. In Mixed Mode, typically seen in Design 1 & 2, one person plays the role of content and process expert. In Split Mode, content roles and process roles are separated and distinct. Roles are much more defined in applied creativity (CPS) process systems, and are often shown in accompanying literature.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

52

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

16 Most process models in this study do not visually show the tools and or techniques that require mastery within each step. This means it is difficult to know whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deep and whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shallow by looking at graphic depictions of process. Beneath some innovation process models, deep codified knowledge exists as well as numerous tools and techniques. Other models contain little codified knowledge and few tools or techniques. The fact that deep and shallow models might look graphically similar can be misleading.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

53

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

17 There is an assumption of skills progression behind many innovation process models. Level 1, 2, & 3 or Yellowbelt, Blackbelt, are typical depictions of process skill progression. Some models call for deep and lengthy skills mastery. Several models have 5 or 6 levels to their skills progression ladders. Most design process models have no formal skill progression ladder structures. In the applied creativity community of practice, process awareness is considered to be very different from process mastery.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

54

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

18 Many design process models intend to be “human-centered”, “user-centered”, or “life-centered”, but such notions are seldom conveyed graphically in the actual process models. We recognize that this omission has lead to considerable lack of public understanding regarding differences of intention among design process and other process models.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

55

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

19 Most innovation process models created prior to the 2010-2013 era do not contain any visual depiction of values. In early innovation process models, values were constructed by the participants during creation of judgment criteria. We call these situational values. We recognize that today there is growing interest in defining a set of universal values that work in tandem with situational values.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

56

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

20 Prior to 2010-2013, most innovation process models did not include a formal phase or step for â&#x20AC;&#x153;measurementâ&#x20AC;? of outcomes. Historically, measurement was often an afterthought not reflected in the process model design. Today there is more awareness that measurement needs to be integrated into innovation process models.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

57

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

21 Some process models are simple enough to be easily grasped graphically, cognitively and held in human memory. Other models are too complex for easy memory storage. These differences can impact teach-ability and adoption in various contexts. It appears that some process creators have taken such human use issues into consideration in their process design while other process creators have not.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

58

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

22 Assuming that innovation process models are essentially projections of thinking preferences (Humantificâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Preference Projection Theory), this study would suggest that many of the process authors have had Pattern Creating thinking preferences rather than Pattern Optimization preferences. This is significant in that our other practice-based research indicates that most present-day corporate cultures in the United States tilt towards valuing Pattern Optimization over Pattern Creation. In such organizations, now considered to be old style, judgement, convergence, and decision-making are positioned as the highest form of value. Such positioning and privileging has become obsolete.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

59

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

23 Open Innovation, defined as multiple, internal and external humans engaging together to address challenges with open tools, has been part of applied creativity (CPS) history since the 1940s. The much later arriving reformulated 2003 version of Open Innovation significantly narrowed the focus to the question of who participates. This study returns the conversation to earlier broader considerations of what Open Innovation is today and might be in the future, including the consideration of methods and tools.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

60

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

24 The innovation methods design history shows a clear building adaptation and â&#x20AC;&#x153;mashupâ&#x20AC;? progression from one evolution generation to another. Regardless, some process authors have adopted a copyright stance towards their evolution while others have adopted a more open stance. This makes the open versus copyright picture of innovation methods complex and fuzzy today. Regardless of the various stances, innovation history indicates that much of the original foundational logic, on which so many subsequent processes were built, passed into the public realm decades ago.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

61

Innovation Methods Mapping

FINDING

25 Historically, innovation process creators have viewed the creation of innovation processes as an expert’s realm. Most process models seen in this study have been created with an orientation towards end users of the process rather than towards enabling other creators/programmers to create/ program new process models. This “experts” dynamic is changing. Today, both expert and non-expert directions have advocates as well as detractors. The implications of everyone designing innovation process are not yet known, and to date there is little published research in this direction. As the future unfolds, such research will no doubt emerge.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

62

Innovation Methods Mapping

OTHER FINDINGS In complex studies such as this one, many findings are generated, some tiny and others large. The Methods Mapping Team decided on these 25 findings as key, AND many more findings exist, some of which can best be explained conversationally. For inquiries regarding findings and their various implications send an email to: findings (at) openinnovationconsortium (dot) org

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

63

Innovation Methods Mapping

InsightLab | StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab

Copyright Š 2009 Humantific Inc. All Rights Reserved.

10 DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

InsightLab | StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab

65

Copyright Š 2009 Humantific Inc. All Rights Reserved.

10 PROCESS DESIGN IMPLICATIONS 1.  The innovation process history seen in this study suggests that there is no one perfect innovation process. 2.  Depending on what it is that you seek to accomplish on your innovation journey, you might decide to spend more time and effort in one hemisphere/quadrant or another. 3.  A perfectly balanced process may or may not be perfectly suited for your project. 4.  With new process balance knowledge in place, customizing innovation models is possible today like never before. 5.  Process Balance Literacy, i.e. awareness of balance, imbalance and various implications, is more important than having the perfectly balanced process model.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

66

Innovation Methods Mapping

6.  Achieving high levels of process mastery requires deep codified knowledge and a skills progression system, not just a graphic depiction of process. 7.  Consider the relationship between the scale/complexity of your challenge and the process being used to address it. 8.  Upstream process models create very different outcomes than downstream process models. 9.  Understand that the default dialogue dynamic in western culture is criticism and convergent thinking (also called the devil’s advocate). Without some process orchestration, this convergent dynamic dominates. 10.  Process models used in organizational contexts work best when they are more than a projection of one person’s or one group’s thinking preference and values. Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

67

Innovation Methods Mapping

WHAT’S NEXT? org

InsightLab | StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab

Copyright © 2009 Humantific Inc. All Rights Reserved.

INNOVATION METHODS MAPPING BOOK 2 is already underway. If you would like to participate in the next round of this ongoing sensemaking initiative, suggest a process model to be included or have your organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s innovation process reviewed, send an email to:

methodsmapping (at) openinnovationconsortium (dot) org

FEEDBACK: We welcome feedback from readers. If you found this book useful please send us a quote!

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium InsightLab | StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab

69

Innovation Mapping Copyright Š 2009 Humantific Inc. AllMethods Rights Reserved.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Continuous Innovation: The process of consciously cycling through Pattern Creation and Pattern Optimization. We value both equally. CPS: An acronym in use since the 1940s, CPS is a short form for Creative Problem Solving. Innovation Methods Mapping: The analytical process of deconstructing innovation processes and mapping their components to the 10 view analysis framework found in this book. Innovation Process Literacy: A form of knowledge focused on 21st century understanding of the dynamics underlying innovation process design. Language Mode: The assumed but not always expressed procedural logic inside process models. Language Mode, Mixed: Innovation process models where content and process are mixed in one role, one expert. The lead facilitator/navigator is in a combined role as content expert and process expert. Most traditional design thinking process models assume Mixed Language Mode.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

70

Innovation Methods Mapping

Language Mode, Split: Innovation process models where content knowledge is separated from process knowledge and played out in separate roles. The lead facilitator/navigator is in a process expert role, not content (subject matter) role. Most applied creativity process models assume Split Language Mode. Process Type, Script: A type of innovation process model that prescribes a sequence of detailed actions or behaviors, often with the caveat that nonlinearity is intended. Process Type, Script/Zone: A type of innovation process model that combines Script and Zone characteristics. Process Type, Zone: A type of innovation process model that provides a outline scaffold or framework, inside which many action options are possible, often without any behavior prescribed. Open Innovation: A concept in use in the applied creativity community since the 1950s. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Openâ&#x20AC;? has always been and remains an approach to innovation that encompasses not only deliberate inclusion of internal and external participants but also of right & left brain value systems as well as consideration of toolsets and process models. Are tools closed (copyrighted) or open (not copyrighted)? These considerations have always been part of open innovation considerations and are thus reflected in this book.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

71

Innovation Methods Mapping

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Pattern Creating: Pattern Creating innovation creates value by breaking known existing patterns, departing from typical examples, ways of doing things, previous work, etc. Pattern Creating is the equivalent to seizing the unknown or digging a hole in a different place. It is particularly useful at the earliest stages of projects. A new strategy is a new pattern as is a new toothbrush, new company, new network, new community or a new city. If you are in the doughnut business this means thinking and inventing outside that industry. Pattern Optimizing: Pattern Optimizing innovation creates value by extending, reshaping, reformulating, or redirecting an earlier innovation. Pattern Optimizing is roughly the equivalent to perfecting the known or digging the same hole deeper/better. Pattern Optimizing is particularly useful in maximizing first generation innovation in its prototype stage when much value has yet to be fully realized. If you are in the doughnut business, this means improving the efficiency of doughnut making. Preference Projection Theory: A work in progress by Humantific hypothesizing that many innovation process models, initiatives and value systems are unconscious projections of their creatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own thinking preferences. SenseMaking: The continuous process of creating situational awareness and understanding in situations of high complexity or uncertainty. No longer just an amateur activity, today there are many professional disciplines and robust tools involved in sensemaking.

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

72

Innovation Methods Mapping

Think Balance: The degree to which an innovation process is balanced between divergence and convergence thinking as well as across the four zones in this book: Discover & Orient, Define & Conceptualize, Optimize & Plan, Execute & Measure. Visual SenseMaking: The activity of making sense of ambiguous, complex situations through visual methods and tools, including words, images, drawings, diagrams, charts, graphs, etc. Working Upstream: Participating in or leading the framing of challenges and opportunities prior to the creation of briefs. Upstream is upstream from the brief. Working upstream involves having no preconceived challenge or solution paths embedded in the approach or toolbox. Working Downstream: Starting from a framed or semi-framed challenge in the form of a brief. Downstream is downstream from the brief. Working downstream presumes preconceived challenge and solution paths are embedded in the approach or toolbox. This typically means someone has already decided generally what the challenges and opportunities are. (Product Design, Service Design, etc.)

Humantific for OPEN Innovation Consortium

73

Innovation Methods Mapping

OPEN Innovation Consortium openinnovationconsortium.org


Innovation Methods Mapping