Original article: http://lightcolorsound.blogspot.co.za/2013/12/ndebele.html
Original article: http://lightcolorsound.blogspot.co.za/2013/12/ndebele.html
Original article: https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-transformative-business-model
We usually associate an industry’s transformation with the adoption of a new technology. But although new technologies are often major factors, they have never transformed an industry on their own. What does achieve such a transformation is a business model that can link a new technology to an emerging market need.
MP3 technology is a classic case in point. Early MP3 devices represented an order-of-magnitude increase in capacity over magnetic tapes and CDs: Users could carry thousands of songs on a small device. But MP3 players revolutionized the audio devices market only after Apple coupled the iPod with iTunes in a new business model, swiftly moving music-recording sales from the physical to the virtual world.
What, exactly, enables a business model to deliver on a technology’s potential? To answer that question, we embarked on an in-depth analysis of 40 companies that had launched new business models in a variety of industries. Some succeeded in radically altering their industries; others looked promising but ultimately did not succeed. In this article we present the key takeaways from our research and suggest how they can help innovators transform industries.
Definitions of “business model” vary, but most people would agree that it describes how a company creates and captures value. The features of the model define the customer value proposition and the pricing mechanism, indicate how the company will organize itself and whom it will partner with to produce value, and specify how it will structure its supply chain. Basically, a business model is a system whose various features interact, often in complex ways, to determine the company’s success.
In any given industry, a dominant business model tends to emerge over time. In the absence of market distortions, the model will reflect the most efficient way to allocate and organize resources. Most attempts to introduce a new model fail—but occasionally one succeeds in overturning the dominant model, usually by leveraging a new technology. If new entrants use the model to displace incumbents, or if competitors adopt it, then the industry has been transformed.
Consider Airbnb, which upended the hotel industry. Founded in 2008, the company has experienced phenomenal growth: It now has more rooms than either InterContinental Hotels or Hilton Worldwide. As of this writing, Airbnb represents 19.5% of the hotel room supply in New York and operates in 192 countries, in which it accounts for 5.4% of room supply (up from 3.6% in 2015).
The founders of Airbnb realized that platform technology made it feasible to craft an entirely new business model that would challenge the traditional economics of the hotel business. Unlike conventional hotel chains, Airbnb does not own or manage property—it allows users to rent any livable space (from a sofa to a mansion) through an online platform that matches individuals looking for accommodations with home owners willing to share a room or a house. Airbnb manages the platform and takes a percentage of the rent.
Because its income does not depend on owning or managing physical assets, Airbnb needs no large investments to scale up and thus can charge lower prices (usually 30% lower than hotels charge). Moreover, since the home owners are responsible for managing and maintaining the property and any services they may offer, Airbnb’s risks (not to mention operational costs) are much lower than those of traditional hotels. On the customer side, Airbnb’s model redefines the value proposition by offering a more personal service—and a cheaper one.
Before platform technology existed, there was no reason to change the hotel business in any meaningful way. But after its introduction, the dominant business model became vulnerable to attack from anyone who could leverage that technology to create a more compelling value proposition for customers. The new business model serves as the interface between what technology enables and what the marketplace wants.
Let’s look now at what features make a business model transformative.
We selected the 40 new business models we analyzed on the basis of how many mentions they received in the high-quality, high-circulation business press. All of them seemed to have the potential to transform their industries, but only a subset had succeeded in doing so. We looked for recurring features in the models and found six. No company displayed all of them, but as we shall see, a higher number of these features usually correlated with a higher chance of success at transformation.
Many new models offer products or services that are better tailored than the dominant models to customers’ individual and immediate needs. Companies often leverage technology to achieve this at competitive prices.
Many models replace a linear consumption process (in which products are made, used, and then disposed of) with a closed loop, in which used products are recycled. This shift reduces overall resource costs.
Some innovations succeed because they enable the sharing of costly assets—Airbnb allows home owners to share them with travelers, and Uber shares assets with car owners. Sometimes assets may be shared across a supply chain. The sharing typically happens by means of two-sided online marketplaces that unlock value for both sides: I get money from renting my spare room, and you get a cheaper and perhaps nicer place to stay. Sharing also reduces entry barriers to many industries, because an entrant need not own the assets in question; it can merely act as an intermediary.
Some models charge customers when they use the product or service, rather than requiring them to buy something outright. The customers benefit because they incur costs only as offerings generate value; the company benefits because the number of customers is likely to grow.
Some innovations are successful because a new technology improves collaboration with supply chain partners and helps allocate business risks more appropriately, making cost reductions possible.
Innovators sometimes use technology to move away from traditional hierarchical models of decision making in order to make decisions that better reflect market needs and allow real-time adaptation to changes in those needs. The result is often greater value for the customer at less cost to the company.
Each feature on this list is tied to long-term trends in both technology and demand.On the tech side, one trend is the development of sensors that allow cheaper and broader data capture. Another is that big data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are enabling companies to turn enormous amounts of unstructured data into rules and decisions. A third is that connected devices (the internet of things) and cloud technology are permitting decentralized and widespread data manipulation and analysis. And a fourth is that developments in manufacturing (think nanotechnology and 3-D printing) are creating more possibilities for distributed and small-scale production.
All six features represent potential solutions for linking market demand and technological capability. For example, greater personalization in the value proposition responds to the fragmentation of consumer preferences and the resultant demand for more-diverse offerings. That personalization has been made possible by sensors that collect data from connected devices via the cloud; the data is analyzed by big data solutions and turned into services—such as recommendations and alerts—that are different for each user.
In theory, the more of the six features a new business model has, the greater its potential to transform a given industry should be. We tested that hypothesis by analyzing how many features each of the 40 new models displayed and comparing the results with its actual performance.
The taxi service company Uber ticks no fewer than five boxes. Its business model is built on asset sharing—the drivers use their own cars. Uber has developed a collaborative ecosystem in which the driver assumes the risk of winning rides, while the platform helps minimize that risk through the application of big data. The platform also creates agility through an internal decision-making system that responds to market changes in real time. This lets Uber apply usage-based pricing and direct drivers to locations where the probability of finding a fare is high.
Finally, Uber uses a scheme whereby customers rate drivers. Via the big data platform, a would-be customer can see on his or her mobile device the closest drivers and their ratings. The rating system pushes drivers to offer clean cars and quality service, and it also provides at least a bit of personalization. Allowing the customer to decide between the closest car and the one (maybe a bit farther out) with the highest rating may not sound like much, but it is still far ahead of traditional taxi services.
The implication of our finding is straightforward: If you are thinking about changing your business model or entering an industry with a new model, you can rate yourself on how well your model performs on the six features. If you don’t beat the competition on any of them, your chances of success are low. But if your model significantly outdoes the current model on three or more features, you are well positioned to succeed.
Uber has five key features of a potentially transformative business model.
To rate yourself on a feature, you must first define what it actually means in your industry. For example, in financial services personalization may mean tailored loan terms (including interest rates, monthly payments, and loan duration), whereas in retail it may mean customized T-shirt designs or one-off dresses. In education it may mean that the support provided to students changes according to their individual strengths and weaknesses, and in health care it may mean data-enabled, targeted medicine. Only when performance is expressed in such industry-specific ways can a company develop metrics to evaluate and compare its model on the key features and begin to think about how to differentiate itself by using new technologies.
Informed by our business model framework, we advised (and Cambridge Judge Business School’s business accelerator supported) the tech venture Healx, which focuses on the treatment of patients with rare diseases in the emerging field of personalized medicine. A big challenge for pharmaceutical companies in this domain is that rare-disease markets are very small, so companies usually have to charge astronomical prices. (One drug, Soliris, used in the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, costs about $500,000 per patient-year.) Some potential treatments are, however, being used for more-common diseases with large patient markets. They could be repurposed to suit the needs of rare-disease sufferers, but they typically work only for people with specific genetic profiles.
Enter Healx, with a platform that leverages big data technology and analytics across multiple databases owned by various organizations within global life sciences and health care to efficiently match treatments to rare-disease patients. Its initial business model hit three of our six key features. First, Healx’s value proposition was about asset sharing (for example, making available clinical-trial databases that record the effectiveness of most drugs across therapeutic areas and diseases, including rare ones). Second, the business promised more personalization by revealing drugs with high potential for treating the rare diseases covered. Finally, Healx’s model would, in theory, create a collaborative ecosystem by bringing together big pharma (which has the treatment and trial data) and health care providers (which have data about effectiveness and incompatibility reactions and also personal genome descriptions).
Healx’s latest business model brings personalization to the highest level.
How did we measure performance along those features? To assess personalization, we compared the amount of drug data currently provided to sufferers of rare diseases with the amount that Healx could provide, which initially covered 1,000 of the 7,000 rare diseases that have formal advocacy groups worldwide. These groups represent some 350 million people, 95% of whom currently get no even reasonably relevant drug recommendations. We measured asset sharing by looking at the proportion of known data on rare-disease-relevant drugs that Healx could access—about 20% in its start-up phase. Finally, we assessed its collaborative ecosystem by looking at how many of the main data-holding institutions participated—about a quarter.
At first Healx struggled to get pharma companies to join the platform; they were concerned that their treatment data would leak to competitors. But the Healx team spotted an opportunity to give companies an incentive. In 2014 the United Kingdom’s National Health Service introduced a new rule for pharmaceutical companies: If an expensive treatment doesn’t work for a patient, the company responsible can be forced to reimburse NHS providers for its cost. The reimbursement amounts were disease-specific and counted in the thousands of British pounds.
Treatment failure is often caused by specificities in individual genomes, and Healx’s managers realized that their technology could help companies predict such failures with high accuracy, potentially saving millions of pounds a year.
More recently, Healx has developed a machine-learning algorithm that can use a patient’s biological information not only to match drugs to disease symptoms but also to predict exactly which drug will achieve what level of effectiveness for that particular patient. The latest version of its business model brings personalization to the maximum possible level and adds agility, because the treating clinician—armed with the biological data and the algorithm—can make better treatment decisions directly with the patient and doesn’t have to rely on fixed rules of thumb about which of the few available off-label drugs to use. In this way, Healx is able to support decentralized, real-time, accurate decision making.
This version of the Healx model has even more transformation potential—it exhibits four of the six features; it has already generated revenue from customers; and in the long term it could empower patients by giving them much more information before they consult a medical practitioner. Although it is still too early to tell whether that potential will be realized, Healx is clearly a venture to watch. It has earned a number of prizes (including the 2015 Life Science Business of the Year and the 2016 Graduate Business of the Year in the Cambridge cluster) and sizable investments from several global funds.
You cannot guarantee the success of an innovation (unless you choose a market niche so small as to be insignificant). But you can load the dice by ensuring that your business model links market needs with emerging technologies. The more such links you can make, the more likely you are to transform your industry.
Original article: https://hbr.org/2016/09/why-user-experience-always-has-to-come-first
Actions speak louder than mission statements. If a UX feels more like “User Exploitation” than “User Experience,” business becomes ripe for disruption. Profitability predicated on customer friction, intrusion, and irritation simply isn’t sustainable. Privileging easy money over better user experience is the antithesis of customer centricity.
That’s why digital services in general, and mobile advertising in particular, make superior templates for evaluating business model design. Entwining real-time data and predictive analytics lets serious organizations quickly calculate and calibrate trade-offs between experiential and exploitive UXs. Those trade-offs become explicit. Most everyone in the enterprise can now see where customers are respected partners in value creation, and where they’re data-herded sheep to be sheared.
For example, Facebook makes great money from mobile advertisers, but it’s now refusing to subsidize technical inefficiencies that undermine overall UX. Roughly 40% of Facebook mobile users abandon sites that take even three seconds to load. Delays frequently lead to abandoning the Facebook visit as well. Unsurprisingly, the company informed advertisers to speed up their load times or else.
“Our goal is to give people the best ad experience possible on mobile. By considering website performance and a person’s network connection, we can improve that experience and help drive the outcomes advertisers are looking for,” a Facebook spokesman said.
Crudely put, when advertising latencies undermine perceived UX quality, Facebook optimizes UX at the tardy advertisers’ expense. Abandonment in any form is an increasingly measurable outcome. Facebook has effectively declared that it prioritizes superior UX over inferior advertising.
This highlights a fundamental dynamic that’s transforming digital product and services worldwide: Dynamic pricing is being superceded by dynamic opportunism. That is, platform providers and innovation ecosystems are rethinking how they really make money from, and with, their customers and partners. That means they must constantly (re)calculate whether, and when, degrading their UX in exchange for easy or instant money is worth it.
The ongoing networked fusion of data and analytics basically forces organizations to reveal how much they value their customer relationships as relationships, as opposed to as a series of transactions aggregated over time. The former perspective inspires and incents a different investment in UX than the latter.
Reducing UX frictions and irritations that have nothing to do with money or value creation is a no-brainer. But technology makes it easier and simpler for more organizations to try to get away with profitable but irritating little nicks and customer scrapes. In other words, temptations and opportunities for “nickel and diming” one’s customers and partners are digitally rising.
Google’s policies curtailing mobile interstitial adverts — pop-ups that spread, fungus-like, across your mobile screen — underscore this intensifying theme.
“Google’s intention is to not just direct people to more informative results, but to results that work better for them — e.g., don’t annoy them with a pop-up — too,” The Verge observed. “This is something Google has increasingly been doing with its search algorithm. Last year it began boosting the rank of ‘mobile friendly’ websites, and in 2014, it began boosting the rank of sites with encryption as well.”
Note that a pop-up’s IQ — Irritation Quotient — is but one of hundreds of elements that Google uses to weight its mobile search algorithm. That said, Google tracks user abandonment rates as assiduously as Facebook does. The essential tension doesn’t go away: When does user experience feel like, or become, user exploitation?
Advertisements that genuinely interest or intrigue users will obviously be welcome no matter how intrusively or invasively they materialize. The receptivity/abandonment ratios can now be tracked and analyzed with increasing rigor.
But the most important takeaway should revolve not around advertising efficacy but around how — individually and collectively — advertising defines and determines the UX. The death-by-a-thousand-cuts, or pop-ups, phenomenon remains a real threat to sustainable platforms and ecosystem growth.
So these UX themes transcend digital advertising trends. An Amazon developer, for example, told me that her company takes great pains to avoid digitally irritating customers. Entire KPI dashboards have apparently been built around receptivity/abandonment behaviors. Tests explicitly examining how “best” customers or “typical/average” customers respond to intrusive offers are hotly debated. Enhancing Amazon’s overall UX is paramount, she insists. Optimizing the overall relationship, not the individual transaction, is the core value.
The leadership challenge around customer centricity will become sharper and starker both inside the enterprise and outside. Will business discipline revolve around optimizing UX for customer value? Or does “dynamic opportunism” devolve into user exploitation? How your organization defines and manages its receptivity/abandonment ratios will tell you the answers.
Original article: https://medium.com/ideo-stories/want-more-women-in-tech-design-it-40691587033d
“Female Engineers Continue to Outnumber Male Counterparts.”
“Top 10 Most Innovative Companies now run by Women.”
“Investors Back More Female Founders, study says.”
Just kidding. But could we design a future in which those headlines were true?
We took that challenge to TEDWomen 2015, where the theme was “Momentum”. More than 750 women (and a few brave men) spent three days hearing from extraordinary people who are already transforming how we think, live, and work.
When it comes to the tech and venture world, it’s clear that no one is happy with the current state of affairs, not least our most visible CEOs. Talk of gender inequity — and lack of diversity in technology more broadly — has reached a fever pitch.
Our team at IDEO partnered with TED and Greylock Partners to have an open, generative conversation about how we might change the tech ecosystem to provide greater opportunities for female entrepreneurs.
If design is about solving problems, we thought, let’s use it to address this one.
Of course, we knew this was not a problem that could be solved over salmon at a 90-minute lunch. But we also knew this was an unmissable opportunity to convene a remarkable group of TEDWomen attendees — from C-suite leaders and investors to startup founders and entrepreneurs — who could help us create the kind of momentum the women up on stage were telling us about, from a school principal in Chicago to a teenager in Malawi.
We did a little prep to help direct the conversation. At IDEO, design starts with people. To get a broader sense of what women are dealing with out there, we asked some successful female founders to tell us about their experience as they built and launched their companies. Down to the last, everyone had battle scars to share with the group. Problem identified.
To keep us on a directed course, we charted the entrepreneur’s journey as a Steve Zissou-esque voyage out to sea (the TEDWomen conference took place in the coastal town of Monterey, after all) and identified a few ports of call along the way where we might wield influence:
Using that chart as a backdrop, we asked some open-ended questions:
How might we encourage women to take the leap from idea to action?
How might we support women in being bullish about valuing their companies?
How might we productively call out bias to shift perspectives?
Almost immediately, the ideas flew.
Here are just a few: Our hope is that this springboards more conversation, and also encourages people to start prototyping.
In one of the more poignant moments of the discussion, one female VC suggested that to truly affect change, investors need to back more women founders and start writing checks. Her point was that the core leverage in the system as a VC is who you back. Vigorous head nodding followed.
The optimism, hope, and ideas lobbed by the group spilled over into the rest of the conference, as we bumped into one another at the coffee stand.
(Our bubble wasn’t even burst by countless cab drivers and bus boys who chipperly called us “girls” and “sweetie” underneath the TEDWomen conference banner.)
So what. Now what? (thanks, Linda Cliatt Wayman)
How can we outmaneuver or simply work around the implicit bias that is holding women back in tech, where we make up only ⅓ of employees(compared to 59 percent of the overall US labor force)? Systemic bias can start pretty far upstream (lack of STEM encouragement for school-aged girls, for example), but every day we wade through those waters without calling it out, we lose ground.
The need for more women as founders and leaders of companies isn’t really about equality, either — it’s simply good business. In companies that have the top 20 percent of financial performance, 27 percent of leaders are women. And from a Gallup study that looked at 800 business units from two companies representing two different industries (retail and hospitality), gender-diverse business units in the retail company had 14 percent higher average comparable revenue than less-diverse business units. In the hospitality company it was even more pronounced — 19 percent higher average quarterly net profit.
Anyone can run with ideas like “bias stickers” or a support hotline for women in business and learn what works and what doesn’t. Let’s experiment our way to a future that makes the headlines of this article a reality.
For more thoughts on this topic, listen to our IDEO Futures Podcast. Other ideas? Send us a flare! #HowMightWomen.
The future is ours to design.
Original article: https://medium.com/design-x-data/how-we-use-data-to-inspire-design-ccc51327e904
When most people imagine good design, numbers probably don’t come to mind. In fact, anything quantitative might feel completely at odds with the concept of beautiful design. But at IDEO, in addition to connecting with people and learning their stories, designers use quantitative data as a tool to gain empathy and inspiration. We learn from numbers the same way we learn from people, because we see numbers as a representation of people.
In our traditional human-centered design process, we empathize by going where people live and work. We talk with extreme users. We immerse ourselves in their lives. We explore the tension between what people say versus what they do. We prototype. As the world becomes increasingly digital, data becomes a natural byproduct of people’s lives. We’ve learned that the qualitative process we traditionally use cannot only be strengthened by this quantitative data, but can also uncover insights that qualitative data alone cannot. Quantitative data is a rich, ripe source for design research that IDEO is using (and you should too!) to get inspired by users.
If we wanted to learn how to improve a product, would it be better to talk to someone who feels indifferent towards the product or someone who hates it? At IDEO, we prefer to talk to the extreme users, the “haters” and “super users.” Why? We’ve learned that the needs of extreme users are amplified. They really need something to be one way or another. There’s no in-between. They can clearly articulate what is amazing or awful about the product and show us the workarounds they use to make up for the product’s weaknesses. This helps us pull out meaningful needs that may not emerge when engaging with the average user who represents the mean.
Quantitative data is perfect for helping designers determine who the extreme users are to better understand what makes them stand out. We can analyze the behaviors of people in the bottom or top quartile of the dataset. We can also use the data to guide our qualitative research. For example, one startup we were working with was questioning whether or not to incorporate a feature into their product. The data showed that most people used the feature only ~1.5 times, so their first thought was to get rid of it. Rather than focusing on the “average” user, we looked at the whole distribution. We spoke to the two or three people at the extreme who maxed out the use of the feature to learn what value the feature was providing and how to tweak the feature (and the messaging) to make it more helpful to others.
There’s no better way to understand the people we’re designing for than by immersing ourselves in their lives. Why? Because observing what people do and how they interact with their environment gives us clues about what they think, feel, and need. This helps us uncover insights and inspire new design solutions.
Digital products enable designers to collect an endless stream of quantitative data to immerse themselves in the lives of users. With permission, users can take us along with them wherever they go — even when we’re not physically present — and share their needs and desires in real time with us. For example, IDEO worked with an automobile company to understand how people move through cities. To immerse ourselves in users’ lives, we asked them to download the Moves app which tracked how they moved through their city. We also asked users to take photos and videos of moments when their trips went wrong, and moments when their trips made them smile. For every major travel incident, we were able to connect the quantitative data with the photos taken in the field and the human stories. This way, we understood the insight wasn’t just the numbers: it was grounded in human experience and connected to a larger system.
Good design is often built on a solid understanding of both people’s explicit and latent needs. One way we uncover the needs and values that may not be obvious to the people who hold them is by listening to the stories people tell and comparing them to observations of what they actually do. The differences often indicate a latent need that might not otherwise be expressed.
In addition to traditional ethnographic observation, designers can capture the tension between what people say and do from both survey data and behavioral data. Survey data lets us understand people’s thoughts and attitudes about a subject. Live data (i.e., from a website or app) helps us observe actual behavior in a real-world context. For example, an IDEO team was developing an app to identify levers of behavior change to coach safe driving. In surveys and interviews, the team heard people claim they were good drivers. However, the team observed through tracking behavioral data that those drivers were actually riskier. If the team designed opportunities based on what they heard, they’d design products to reward good drivers. If they designed based on what they observed, they’d design products to help people improve bad driving. However, the people who needed their driving improved wouldn’t have used the product because they believed they were good drivers. This insight helped us design for that tension.
Prototyping gets ideas out of designers’ heads and into the world. By building rough prototypes that participants can see, touch, feel, and react to, we can rapidly elicit feedback and test the functionality of early design ideas. This is done overtly, through tactics like questioning and role playing; and tacitly, through observation. After asking for feedback from a number of people who represent different types of users, we synthesize it to find strategic and directional themes to guide our teams in further development.
Traditionally when we built prototypes (anything from paper wireframes to physical retail spaces), we relied on our own observations and conversations with users to understand how the concept resonated. Now, digital tools enable us to collect and leverage quantitative data in our prototype as well. We use live data and integrate it with tools like Slack to prototype digital experiences that feel real for users, but are actually very rough and rapid to create on the backend. These “Wizard of Oz” prototypes enable us to learn quickly and investigate a lot of different possibilities.
For example, an IDEO team was working on a behavior change project and wanted to design a messaging system. Rather than spending time coding a system that would automate responses, we created a ‘magic’ automated experience to quickly prototype effective messaging statements. First, we hooked up the Slack interface to import user data so designers could quickly understand it. Then, we used that data to create, send, and receive personalized text messages to help improve users’ behavior. Based on the the user’s qualitative responses via text messages and behaviors captured via quantitative data, we were able to figure out messaging statements that resonated with users. By creating prototypes that collect both qualitative and quantitative feedback, designers are able to get a better, more holistic understanding of how a concept resonates with users.
Inspiration comes from a variety of sources including observations, conversations, and quantitative data. Quantitative data can be used for direction and inspiration throughout the design process, as it helps us understand where to focus and how and why people behave the way they do. It also serves as an input for prototyping. And together, with qualitative data, it provides us with a complete, meaningful story. The combination of both heightens insights to ensure that the weakness of one is balanced by the other. So the next time you turn to data, consider how you can merge both the people and the numbers to get to the heart of your design challenge.
Original article: http://www.nielsen.com/uk/en/press-room/2015/Nielsen-analysis-of-8500-plus-fmcg-launches-reveals-18-breakthrough-innovation-successes.html
London, 3 December 2015. Nivea, Robinsons, Strongbow, Vanish and Volvic are among a select group of brands to have successfully launched products classed as ‘breakthrough innovation winners’ this year – according to Nielsen’s 2015 Breakthrough Innovation Report, which analysed 8,650 FMCG product launches – nearly 24,500 new SKUs – across Western Europe.
To be classed a breakthrough innovation winner, product launches had to meet three criteria: deliver a new proposition (not just a refinement); generate at least £10/€10 million sales in their first year of trading; and maintain at least 90% of their sales in the second year. 18 product launches did.
The Breakthrough Innovation Winners for 2015 are:
“Three out of four new SKUs fail to generate even £100,000 sales in their first year of trading and are often delisted by retailers,” explains Marcin Penconek, VP of Nielsen’s innovation practice in Europe, and co-author of the report. “Breakthrough innovation is extremely rare but, despite perceptions amongst some, it’s neither random, nor down to luck, nor magic. There are clear patterns behind why consumers pull some products and not others into their lives.”
The report explains why launches succeed or fail, using an approach called “Jobs Theory” – the idea that what causes a person to consume something is not related to that consumer’s identifiable qualities – such as demographics – nor the product attributes, but to the specific circumstances around the job to be done.
Penconek explains Jobs Theory: “It’s the idea that people don’t so much buy products as hire them to perform jobs in their lives . Successful innovators display empathy – they clearly identify the circumstance where consumers struggle or have unmet aspirations and innovate around these.
“Breakthrough innovations are products that solve these issues in a distinctive and compelling way. They communicate it to consumers in a simple way, allowing them to make a clear link between their need and the new product – winners can easily explain their solution to an eight-year old child.”
A selection of winners below illustrates how Breakthrough Innovation was achieved this year:
The full Nielsen Breakthrough Innovation Report for Europe is available for free download here.
Nielsen’s European Breakthrough Innovation Report provides facts, insights and thought leadership on innovation for marketers, based on real observations of impactful launches since 2013. The report is designed to help improve innovation outcomes, and to make every penny invested in innovation go further. The report is based on findings from the launch of 24,353 SKUs, representing more than 8,650 initiatives, from Nielsen’s proprietary ScanTrack Innovation platform, across five key western European markets: UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Breakthrough innovations in other markets, particularly Turkey, have also been reviewed and form part of the overall findings.
Original article: http://www.sadc.int/issues/science-technology/
Part of the vision of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is to develop a region where science and technology drive sustainable social and economic development, alleviate poverty and disease, and underpin the creation of employment opportunities and wealth. Most of the challenges facing regional integration as identified in Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (2003) such as food security, energy, water, transport, communications infrastructure and human resources development will require scientific and technological solutions.
Science and Technology as a cross-cutting theme in the region can be used to develop and strengthen national systems of innovation in order to drive sustained socio-economic development and the rapid achievement of the goals of the SADC common agenda including poverty reduction and eradication.
A Protocol on Science, Technology and Innovation was signed by SADC Heads of State and Government in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August 2008. It is a blueprint document that outlines the framework of cooperation between Member States within the SADC region. It came about through extensive deliberations between Member States and covers scientific and technological matters of interest within the region. Some of the aims and objectives of the Protocol in the region are to:
Read more about Science, Technology and Innovation and their contributions to social and human development in the SADC region.
Original article: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/apr/13/bauhaus-dessau-barbican-rowan-moore
Not much united Walter Ulbricht, the Stalinist dictator of East Germany for two decades, and Tom Wolfe, celebrant of the splendours and follies of American capitalist excess. Not much, except a loathing of the Bauhaus and the style of design it inspired. Ulbricht called it “an expression of cosmopolitan building” that was “hostile to the people” and to “the national architectural heritage”. Wolfe called it “an architecture whose tenets prohibit every manifestation of exuberance, power, empire, grandeur or even high spirits and playfulness”.
For Ulbricht it was alien to Germany, for Wolfe it was alien to America. Both agreed that it was placeless, soulless and indifferent to ordinary people’s needs. And if the Bauhaus attracted such consistent forms of hostility, that is due to the power and coherence of the image it presented to the world, of disciplined and monochrome modernist simplicity, usually involving steel and glass. Given that it was actually a short-lived and semi-nomadic school of design and art with the usual riot of individualists, visionaries, eccentrics, schemers and geniuses that such places attract, this appearance of unity was an achievement.
From May the Barbican is staging an exhibition of 400 of the Bauhaus’s works, the first in Britain on this scale for 44 years. It will stress the breadth of its output, including paintings by Paul Klee and László Moholy-Nagy, furniture by Marcel Breuer, textiles by Gunta Stölzl, architecture by Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, photography, film, ceramics, theatre, graphics and product design. It promises to portray the central ideal of the Bauhaus, “to change society in the aftermath of the first world war”, as the Barbican puts it, and “to find a new way of living”.
When Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus in Weimar in 1919 it was with these aspirations for a new life, and for a multiplicity of creative disciplines, together with a stress on the importance of making things as opposed to just theorising about them. But there was not yet a distinct form or direction to these ideas, and almost anything could be considered as a route to a better future, including new spiritualist religions and a strict vegetarian diet which had to be livened up with plenty of garlic. According to Gropius’s spectacular wife Alma, whose other husbands and lovers included Gustav Mahler, Oskar Kokoschka and the writer Franz Werfel, the most distinctive feature of the Bauhaus in its early days was garlic on the breath.
Certain questions were unresolved and intensely debated. Was craft or mass production more important? Could art and manufacturing be reconciled? Did individual expression impede service to society? In 1925 the school moved to Dessau, between Berlin and Leipzig. At the time it was an industrial boom town, the base of the Junkers aeroplane company. The harder-edged, more technocratic arguments started to prevail. The young Marcel Breuer started collaborating with Junkers on making tubular steel furniture of a kind that would eventually become commonplace in boardrooms and forward-thinking homes. Greater attention was paid to the commercial development and marketing of Bauhaus-designed objects.
In Dessau they built, in the extraordinarily short time of one year, the Gropius-designed building that became as famous as the institution it served. With its glass curtain walls and spare rectilinear forms, it crystallised what would become the dominant type of modernist architecture. It was one of the most prodigiously influential buildings of all time, a prototype that would be followed by office buildings, hotels, schools and hospitals in almost any country you can think of. In Dessau, Gropius and his followers could also try out other architectural ideas on the row of houses built for Bauhaus masters, and on 300 low-cost houses built for industrial workers on the Dessau-Torten estate.
In 1932, however, the school moved on again, to Berlin. The next year it fell victim to the National Socialists – another movement that, after the catastrophic trauma of the first world war, sought a new order and expressed itself through memorable visual imagery. Junkers started making Stuka divebombers, not Breuer chairs, and Dessau was all but flattened by bombing in 1945. The Bauhaus building was severely damaged, and only recently has been fully restored. But its influence spread. The Bauhausler diaspora, of ex-students and teachers building in the style they had learned, extended to Tel Aviv and Tokyo. Gropius migrated via London to the United States, where he became a professor at Harvard and designed the Pan Am building above New York’s Grand Central station, much disliked for the way it imposed on the view down Park Avenue. He also designed the Playboy Club in London, prompting a new generation of radicals to denounce him for selling out.
To visit the Bauhaus building now is to be struck again by the extraordinary way in which a single construction in a provincial town could have had so much effect. It is also to see nuances that, inevitably, imitators lost. For years the Bauhaus building was known to the wider world mostly through a few black-and-white photographs that stress its more easily copied details, but miss the point that it was a framework for the creative energy of the school. Its stairs, workshops and balconies were places of display as well as function, and its glass walls made a spectacle of its internal activities. One of the key spaces was an auditorium whose stage is connected to the communal canteen, thereby bringing together performance and life. It also has a subtle colour scheme, contrary to Wolfe’s assertions that the Bauhaus was only interested in black, white and grey. If it looked like a factory it also had properties of a commune, a cult centre and a theatre.
Although it was founded by Gropius, architecture was not at first the main point of the Bauhaus, and its vast legacy extends from graphics through product design to art. But architecture came to dominate the public image of the place, and the style of the building proved easier to record than the events that happened there. What Wolfe and Ulbricht railed against was its impact on the built environment. Which, if you only look at its form and not at its content, does indeed look sterile. Hopefully, the Barbican show will put this misconception right.
As for Alma, she tired of the work ethic of her husband and his school. At least if Tom Lehrer is to believed. As “Alma”, his tribute to her, has it:
But he would work late at the Bauhaus,
And only came home now and then.
She said, “What am I running? A chow house?
It’s time to change partners again.”
Original article: https://www.dezeen.com/2011/12/08/ice-cube-celebrates-the-eames/
The musician, who previously studied as an architectural draftsman, compares the combination of prefabricated elements in the Los Angeles Eames House to a sampled hiphop track.
“Ice Cube Celebrates the Eames” is the latest installment in a series that explores unexpected artistic connections between culturally influential Angelenos of different generations
In “Ice Cube Celebrates the Eames,” O’Shea Jackson, the rapper and actor also known as Ice Cube, talks about his love for architecture and how the work of legendary designers Charles and Ray Eames continues to inspire him.
Touring the home of Charles and Ray Eames, known as Case Study No. 8, Ice Cube explains how hip-hop mirrors the couple’s beautifully designed home as both make use of prefabricated pieces that fit together to form a whole.
“What I love about the Eames is how resourceful they are,” explains Ice Cube. “[The idea for the Eames House is] taking something that already exists and making it something special, kind of like sampling.”
The extended version of the video features Ice Cube driving around Los Angeles and talking about the city’s vast architectural landscape, from strip malls to famous landmarks like the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Watts Towers. Ice Cube has long been passionate about architecture and studied architectural drafting at the Phoenix Institute of Technology in 1987, right around the time when he recorded the first demos with the legendary South Los Angeles rap group N.W.A.
“When N.W.A. was first about to pop off I wasn’t sure if I was gonna make a living [from music],” says Ice Cube. “Cussin’ on the radio? I didn’t know if that was gonna bring me any money, so I ended up going to school in Phoenix and spending a year out there.”
Produced by video director Dave Meyers, “Ice Cube Celebrates the Eames” is the third video in a series that features authentic and unexpected connections between today’s cultural influencers and Pacific Standard Time-era (postwar) artists to show how Los Angeles art continues to inspire the world.
The Eames House Foundation is a Pacific Standard Time exhibition partner, presenting “Indoor Ecologies: The Evolution of the Eames House Living Room”.
Preceded by the videos “Kiedis Celebrates Ruscha” and “Schwartzman Celebrates Baldessari,” the Ice Cube/Eames video is the latest installment in the creative campaign by TBWA\Chiat\Day Los Angeles to promote Pacific Standard Time: Art inL.A.1945-1980, the unprecedented six-month celebration of the birth of the Los Angeles art scene.
From its early roots in the Bronx to its current status as a worldwide cultural movement, hip-hop has never lost its street-level sensibility. When writing songs, rappers and lyricists trade in the currency of credibility, constantly dropping the names of street corners, city neighborhoods, even specific buildings and housing projects to connect listeners with the urban environment.
Hip-hop is often about place. And, according to architect Michael Ford, it is place—often poorly designed, underfunded, and cut off from the rest of the city through bad urban planning and structural racism—that birthed the genre. Ford, who has been tapped to design the forthcoming Universal Hip-Hop Museum in the Bronx, has helped coin the term “hip-hop architecture,” popularizing the concept as a lens for looking at the intersections of culture and the built environment.
But it’s not just about looking back at the ways urban planning and housing policy created the environment for new forms of music; it’s how the ethics and ethos of hip-hop can help inspire new solutions for designing our cities.
“I’m looking at the intersection of architecture and hip-hop,” Ford says. “I use hip-hop to look at the impact architecture has had on the community, and the impact my profession has made. Architecture has shaped communities, but we can go back and reclaim them, and reconnect those that have been lost to things such as freeways.”
Ford, who wrote a thesis about the subject, Cultural Innovation, Hip-Hop Inspired Architecture and Design, while studying at the University of Detroit Mercy in 2005, believes this is a perfect example of the power of narrative. Historical discourse often pushes the idea that the “black ghetto” exists because of the cultural behaviors of its occupants. Exploring and exposing the conscious and subconscious efforts of past members of his profession to shape these spaces, and the effects those decisions have, can inform and inspire more community-oriented design in the future.
Ford can talk all day about hip-hop, how it started in the Bronx and at 1520 Sedgewick Avenue. But ask him who the godfather of hip-hop is, and he won’t say Grandmaster Flash or Kool Herc. He says it’s Le Corbusier. Of course, he doesn’t mean that literally. But the famed French modernist did create the architectural blueprints for the buildings that would become the cradle of the art form.
“This is not a means of taking credit away from the brothers and sisters who actually created hip-hop, but a method to make a sustaining narrative which links the built environment and hip-hop culture based on historical facts,” he said during a presentation in Austin. “And, to be honest, it’s a subtle jab at modernism and those celebrated as the standard bearers of our profession.”
Corbusier’s famous towers-in-the-park concept—a series of soaring high-rises interspersed with parks—aimed to bring “democracy and equality through the built environment.” He thought “good” or “enlightened” buildings would create good and enlightened citizens. Officials in Paris “thought his idea were crazy,” and never implemented Corbusier’s plans.
New York, and its infamous master-builder Robert Moses, had no such reservations, replicating parts of Corbusier’s plan as part of the massive slum-clearance and housing project programs he oversaw in the ‘60s and ‘70s. But, in what Ford calls “a terrible early example of sampling,” Moses borrowed part of Corbusier’s plan—the tall, narrow towers, and dense living conditions—but didn’t include all the amenities and park spaces Corbusier envisioned. The housing projects he created, an architectural sample, then became the standard for public housing across the country.
The construction of these dense towers, and the concurrent freeway construction that cut neighborhoods off from one another, created the spaces that birthed the different elements of hip-hop; DJing, MCing, B-boying, and graffiti. Areas choked of private spaces and arts funding, where creative youth congregated in public parks, towers and basketball courts, and created a cross-pollination of culture.
“People criticized Corbusier’s plans, saying they would ‘create a culture that begs for creativity,’” says Ford. “I call it a prediction of hip-hop culture, almost 50 years before it was born.
These towers had perverse impacts on their residents, says Ford. The physical environments had psychological effects. And it wasn’t just the landscape; social priorities and lack of funding for education or the arts also had a huge impact.
The Project: The Hip-Hop Museum
While Ford and others have published essays and research looking at the historical connections between hip-hop and architecture, he’s also trying to practice a new type of architecture influenced by the cultural movement.
The most high-profile example is his Universal Hip-Hop Museum, a forthcoming cultural institution in the Bronx that not only seeks to share the artform, be inspired by it as well. Instead of a traditional design brief and community feedback loop, the museum’s look was designed in part by a “cypher,” a term that references a freestyle rap battle, and has the support of rap legends such as Kurtis Blow and the Sugar Hill Gang.
Set to open in 2019 or 2020, the museum will also embody hip-hop’s focus on community. Thanks to funding from Microsoft, the initiative will also build a portable museum that, starting later this year, will travel between major cities in the years leading up to the permanent museum’s opening. A truck-like portable space, which Ford has nicknamed “Optimus Prime,” will travel to Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York, not only allowing fans to visit the museum in their hometown, but also to contribute. In a hip-hop spin on StoryCorps, visitors will be able to add their stories, including text and images, and tag them to a specific place, creating a map of hip-hop’s influence across different parts of the country.
“We wanted to figure out a way to make the museum accessible to people around the country,” says Ford. “It’s like mapping a phenomenon. It allows the pioneers of hip hop to tell their own story, it allows architects, designers and urban planners to fuse their culture with their practice and it allows the community to effectively engage in the design process of developments in their neighborhood. ”
Ford has described hip-hop as the “post-occupancy report of Modernism.” Referencing the term architects, designers and engineers typically use for their account of mistakes and success after a project is finished, Ford feels the lyrics and language of hip-hop, and the visceral descriptions of the urban environment, can teach his profession important lessons.
Creating spaces for and by the community matters. Using hip-hop as a connector, narrative, and frame of reference can get more people, especially people of color, engaged in shaping and designing their environments, a form of self-empowerment that seems perfectly aligned with the genre’s message. Only three percent of architects in the United States are African-American, says Ford. He wants to see more kids follow President Obama’s suggestion and become literal architects of change.
“Will hip-hop architecture allow minority students and young practitioners to make immediate contributions to the field of architecture, instantly raising the visibility of minority practitioners as a whole? “ says Ford. “I hope that the hip-hop generation will champion this new vernacular, and rely on our love for hip-hop coupled with our architectural knowledge, to build our communities and increase the number of minority practitioners.”
The Music: A hip-hop playlist about the environment and architecture
Consider this the playlist to Ford’s work. Curbed asked the architect to name some of the songs he feels showcase the relationship between hip-hop and architecture; we included a few below, which he recently played during a lecture.
KRS One – R.E.A.L.I.T.Y. – “Rhymes Equal Actual Life in The Youth”
“I used this song to describe hip-hop lyrics’ are reflections of real life in urban communities. If you want to hear a critique of the environment from which the music is made, listen to the music.”
Grandmaster Flash and Furious Five, “The Message”
“This song describes the urban reality of urban renewal.”
Snoop Dog, “Life in The Projects”
“Describes the dismal environments resulting from the modernist vision, Towers in a Park. The monotonous superblocks failed to provide the lush green environments once envisioned by Le Corbusier.”
Ain’t no trees, the grass ain’t green, And when I say it’s all bad, you know what I mean
Wu-Tang Clan, “S.O.S.”
“Wu-Tang member Street Life’s contribution to ‘S.O.S” reveals a deep frustration and level of tension between public housing authorities, architects and the tenants about the cyclical fostering and implementation of injustices upon African-American communities.
Street chronicle, wise words by the abdominal
High honorable, rap quotable phenomenal
Seniority kid, I speak for the minority
Ghetto poverty f*** the housing authority
The West Coast All-Stars, “We’re All in the Same Gang”
“In the song “We’re All in The Same Gang”, produced by Dr. Dre in 1990, featuring the top hip hop artists and rappers from the West Coast. Shock G eludes to John B Calhoun’s research during his verse below. Sociologist John B. Calhoun studied the behavior of lab mice under conditions of overcrowding and controlled resources. People eventually made parallels between the activities of his study subjects to humans, some predicting that overcrowding was in the future for the human race, and based on his research, violence, amongst other things, was an inevitable part of that future if we don’t change the way we design our cities.
I’m in a rage. Oh Yea? Why is that G?
Because other races, they say we act like rats in a cage.
I tried to argue, but check it, every night in the news, We prove them suckers right and I got the blues
Nas, “I Can”
“Nas told your hip hoppers they can be whomever they want to be, including an architect.”
Be, B-Boys and girls, listen up
You can be anything in the world, in God we trust
An architect, doctor, maybe an actress
But nothing comes easy it takes much practice