![]() Commentary by Ellen Domb |
July 1, 2008
|
|
Eat Soup With a Fork to Learn Innovation |
|
|
My colleague Jim Belfiore at the Invention Machine Company has a great blog, with a mix of personal stories, professional observations, and just plain good writing. This column is a reprint of his recent blog, which is the 4th article in Jim’s “Why Johnny Can’t Innovate” series. Please use the “comment” button at the end of this column to give Jim and me your reactions and your ideas!—Ellen ******************************************************************************** Those of you who’ve just pulled out a spork and feel as if you’ve accomplished something might want to hold off on the victory dance for just a few minutes.) At its core, innovation is the process of creating or discovering ideas that solve a problem, or fill a need. Logistical details regarding the quality and implementation of ideas generally reside outside the innovation process which creates them. History teaches us that for any kind of innovative breakthrough, whether in industry, art or academia, many ideas need to be created and evaluated before a winning idea emerges. The Economist estimates that the number of ideas needed to fuel a successful product development initiative approaches three-thousand. Think about that for a moment. For a winning idea which is made manifest as a product in today’s markets, hundreds or even thousands of similar ideas have to be created, validated, and filtered. Winning product development companies recognize this, but their challenge is none the less a formidable one. In order to fill a product pipeline, a winning company (or individual) must have an ability to come up with more ideas of higher quality, and in less time to compete in a global market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See http://andromeda-30.blogspot.com/ for the whole series. |
|
Comments [6] | Permalink |
|
| Categories: Methodology | |
|
|
| posted by Prakash [ http://trizit.blogspot.com ] | July 3, 2008 at 5:22 am |
Hi Ellen & Jim, Thanks for bringing this post to TRIZ Journal. This is the kind of example we must give it to the audience wanted to know about the effective thinking part using TRIZ. Looking at this from another TRIZ tool perspective, and as Jim mentioned breaking down to simple problems using IFR. Well, not perfect, but here is my 5 minutes thinking.. What is the real IFR here: I want to have some soup; more ideally, want my tongue, stomach (or whatever biological system) to feel the taste of the soup, and also get the benefit of drinking the soup. I don't care about serving me the soup in a small pot, with a fork, or a spoon, or a straw.. What is stopping me to do this now? (within the constraints) : I can not achieve the IFR (above mentioned) with the given option (Fork). So, simply say, I can't access the soup the way it has been served to me. Why is it stopping ? Because, the state of the soup given to me is in such a way that my biological system requires an external (spoon etc) medium to achieve the IFR. How can I remove this obstacle? If there is a way that I can access the soup without bothering about an external medium (fork), I can achieve my IFR. Who else is solving a similar problem: I just applied a 9-windows in my mind, with the system as a person sitting in a restaurant. I can see the super system as the entire eatery related items. So, how about solving this the way chocolate industry doing? What if I can get the soup like a capsule?? |
|
| posted by Ellen Domb [ http://www.trizpqrgroup.com ] | July 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
Thanks for the comments, Michel and Prakash. I think one reason I liked this article so much is that it makes the important TRIZ point that we should focus on the function, rather than the traditional way of achieving the function, in a way that anybody from any background can learn from. The fork is just one resource--sure, let's do a second five minutes on chopsticks, |
|
| posted by Jim Belfiore [ http://andromeda-30.blogspot.com ] | July 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
Thank you for the comments, Prakash, Michel and Ellen. I have observed that basic, creative thinking is something that is hampered by a fear of failure, or a fear that any idea might be too silly to consider. As we depend more and more on glossaries of answers to fit any technical problems, individual creativity suffers as a result. A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a Japanese restaurant and was served a bowl of miso soup with chopsticks. A moment later, a spoon arrived at the table, but not before I thought about using the problem as an example for this article. I decided to use a fork in the article simply because it is easy to visualize as a universally inappropriate tool for eating soup. I'm glad you've enjoyed the article. (Thanks, Michel, for the book recommendation) |
|
| posted by paulette [ http://lovermus.com ] | July 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm |
I think innovation shouldn't be feared. Things are created today for convenience of our living:) |
|









