innovation playground Idris Mootee

Design Leadership Is More Than Simplicity. It Is About Design Discipline.

El·e·gant, an adjective and define or characterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style. Marc Jacob? Chanel? Jil Sander? Hermes? All are unquestionably elegant by design in the fashion world. How about smartphones or interfaces? Can they be elegant? Or what about customer experiences? Can you describe a banking or customer service experience as elegant? Most people don’t.

Is elegant a word reserved solely for tangible product? The design world likes to use words such as “elegant”, “simple” and “user friendly”, many designers understand how to subtract in creating simple and elegant design solutions. Human factors usually subtract more than add. Good designers often take away complexity in objects or interfaces. Design is more than just making things simple. They appears simple but not necessarily simple. Design is the most complicated process but least understood.

Design should be strategic. Being strategic also means being human. 9 out of 10 designers barely understand what that means. Most are trained as design craftsman. There are very few design visionary and I only know a handful of them. They are also very few design managers. And that’s the reason why designers never made it to the boardroom and they complain they don’t have a voice. Because they are not strategic. Design becomes a competitive advantage for corporations when it is used strategically. At a meta level, design connects the dots between mere survival and humanism supporting by the underlying economics to make it feasible to produce and sell.

I have been hiring and mentoring designers (including some of the very best talents) for decades and can tell you which typology they belong in 5 minutes. It is very easy to find designers, it is not too difficult to find good designers, it is very hard to find design visionary. Because they are not trained in design schools. They need to be cultivated.

But there are so much business can learn from design. If the best design can be elegant, then can a business strategy be “elegant”? Or can a particular management style be described as “elegant”? Anything elegant is often simple; not everything simple is elegant. Things that are simple are often user friendly, not everything simple is user friendly. Sometimes complexity is needed. Simplicity has different meanings. Good businesses need to be simple and easy to understand, and that’s the investment criteria for Warren Buffet. Businesses are getting too complex these days and same for design. Long gone are the days where a few talented young folks sketching out ideas in a room. That's a mindset that stops designers from growing up to a highly complicated world.

Design process is never simple, it is often very messy as everyone has an opinion. Don't try to make it simple. But the result shouldn't be complicated. Design needs strong leadership and no different from other disciplines. Design never works in a highly politically environment and as a result you get design by committee – which is a recipe for disaster. Design management is to take the politics out and allow the essence remains. And the process is true to the mission - design to delight and make profits - not one but both.

Design needs strong leadership. Design never works if it is not managed. Best designers perform well in a professionally managed environment. Not the most desirable for many, but it is necessary. Apple design team is professionally managed and same for Mercedes and Burberry or BMW. There is no design without discipline. There is no discipline without intelligence. Strong design leaders are never popular, because they need to cut out the non-sense that designers to hide behind. To force people to unlearn old theories of design.

Designers wants to remain small, fully independent and less disciplined and that’s why most design firms cannot scale beyond certain size and fail after a few years. They want to ignore the commercial complexities and stay pure. I appreciate that too but companies cannot afford it. Unless it is your own business and you don't care about making profits.

Design for elegance is better for design for simplicity. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Elegance is “far side” simplicity that is emotionally engaging, profoundly intelligent, and artfully crafted to be two things at once: simple and powerful. In today's super connected world, the proliferation of digital devices and experiences require designers to create new ways of harmonizing software and hardware with elegant connectivity – connecting humans in an elegant way. Industrial designers, human interface designers and mechanical engineers need to explore new theories for them to make physical products real and meaningful and elegant. Why elegance? It is not an elusive target? Industrial designers should stop thinking about functional ease and simplicity, that is an over simplify way of thinking design. Some times people love things that are not so easy. Think about your personal relationships, you don’t go for the easiest one, you go for where your hearts is. Design is the same. How do you put love in an industrial produced object? That’s our job.

The Most Successful Wearable Design Is All About Balance, Benefit, Beauty And Behavior.

This is the billion-dollar question: “How do we create the iPhone pr Walkman of wearables?” and “How do we create sub-ecosystems around these wearables?” At the CES who this year, you can still see everyone displaying their newest or not-so-new wearable ideas. No one can afford to miss the train but most of the wearables out there now are just toys and eventually will become thrown aways. I can't find a reason anyone would want to buy most these so called wearables. Google glass is officially a failed experiment, or at least for now. GoPro is a stellar success and Apple will enter that game soon. They have been granted a patent for a wearable camera that could possibly challenge action cameras leader GoPro.

The path to mass adoption of wearables will not be a straightforward one. There are numerous technology, user behavior and production economics barriers to cross. With all this buzz and emerging innovative conceptual designs competing for the dominance, there are still many questions to be asked about what the future holds and how consumers will adopt a different product paradigm. Even the smartphone is still shaping our behavior and we are still actively reprogramming ourselves. The smartphone is becoming the operating system of our professional and personal lives, our relationships with the outside world and emerging systems around it. When it comes to the operating system, the main battle will be an OS that will interoperate across all devices. This is the big play. The success of any dominant design for wearables will be based on successfully tackling of the 4Bs:

Balance, Benefit, Beauty and Behavior.

Balance: To design wearables, one must ensure that they are, indeed, wearable. That means comfortable and adaptable to the various places and spaces the body inhabits in the world. To do this, design needs to include studying the anthropometric measures of the human body and of the equilibrium between the various zones of the body. One key to success is ensuring that the form or shape of the wearable fits the body and its actions in the world. Nerdy high-tech designs will not cut it. Balance reflects the highest level of design excellence, seeking an unselfconsciousness in interactivity languages, adding a sense of space to that of place with engineering overtones that are human at the same time.

Benefit: Designers must first determine the real problem the wearable concept is trying to solve, needing to solve, able to solve. Focusing on needs means designers can concentrate on the things that deliver the highest value. The benefit doesn’t have to be a known benefit today and there could be some needs users don’t even know exist until they see them. Sometimes these benefits appear to be small but actually can make a big difference in behavioral change. Contained product moments and the tiniest interactions are important in designing the customer experience of wearables, and designers must try to transform them into opportunity.

Beauty: The consumer needs to love the design. It needs to have visual appeal so, to the user, it doesn’t look like something you see in a Sci-Fi movie. The design needs to be expressive and not only limit to the form factor, but the overall interactive experience. The connectivity piece is key – it needs to allow for seamless wireless connection. The interactions or interface design is the trickiest part. The designers must translate the mass into energy, form and relationship. This is about creating order out of chaos, to put order into things, to make things more simple, to give meaning to objects through the presence of a design language.

Behavior: This is the least predictable part. Just look at all those health tracking devices, there is a tremendous gap exists between collecting and reporting data and changing behavior, there are little evidence to suggest that these wearable is making people more healthier. But for sure, the most successful wearable would be those who can influence our behavior as a mechanism for human behavior change and reinforcement. The subconscious mechanisms by which a human brain forms habits are still a bit of a mystery, and this can let us down a path to come up with devising tools for changing them.  

The Come Back Of Hardware. Is Software Becoming A Commodity?

The world is suddenly obsessed with smart technologies and this time around it seems unstoppable. Our everyday electrical and mechanical industrial object will now be occupied and ran by software and connected to the cloud. It also means each object (as small as some smoke detectors and as large as automobiles) will now be equipped with tons of sensors and can be able to adapt to different environment and individual needs.

It is essential that the next wave of industrial revolution will make us more efficient and empowered (and more human I hope), and data will be at the heart of this revolution. That's another big conversation. All the Nest, GoPro and Beats received multi-billion-dollar valuations through private investments or acquisitions and everyone is wondering why these hardware companies suddenly in such high demand. Because hardware and software are going through different commodity lifecycles and now software is becoming a commodity. They used to be difficult and expensive to develop and even to deploy, that that is changing. It is hard for software company to get into hardware much as hardware companies struggle to get into software. Hardware cannot be done by a few geeks in the basement, and involves massive R&D and specialists including megatronics engineers, electrical engineers, industrial designers, wireless engineers and usually takes a longer time to develop.

Software you can fix it with a download, and hardware you can’t. They are massive supply chain challenges when it comes to logistics and component supplies. The value of firms who can marry software and hardware will have a competitive advantage over their competitors. Essentially everything we use today will be fitted with some sensors, processors perhaps, and may be a screen and will recarnate and become of Internet of Things. For the last three decades, software engineering has advanced to a state that sophisticated codes can be embedded into machines. And the availability of cheap sensors and super powerful processors is powering this cycle of data revolution. All of a sudden, software, hardware and communications infrastructure are advancing us into a new era. Old world manufacturing + low cost computer processing + ubligious computing + cloud = smart new world and many cool products.

It sounds like the Apple story all over again, does it? The hardware and software integration capability of Apple, the ecosystem, the brand and user experience are now not only inspiring consumer gadgets company, not it’s influence is beyond its own industry. I know this is an overused story, but he Apple influence is still here, and perhaps it will be here for a long time even when the company stop creating great stuff one day. Microsoft ex-CEO Ballmer saw that coming in 2012 in a letter to shareholders. "It's important to recognize a fundamental shift under way in our business, we see ourselves as a devices and services company." Microsoft had the strategy right but couldn’t execute it fully with the exception of X-Box. Microsoft’s future revenue will still be coming in from software and it isn't going to change anytime soon. The transformation from software to hardware is harder that you think.

The idea that hardware is now the new software is pretty real. There is a business model implication here. These hardwares are mostly priced between $100 to $250 and they a gateway and great way to sell software. We are seeing a revival of hardware and this time, it is hardware first and software and then date on the cloud, it will bring new technological advances in cloud-powered hardware that boosts productivity, efficiency and manifests as beautifully designed objects that fit into our hands and homes.

Action Cam King GoPro Is Turning Our Life Into A Movie. HTC and Others Also See The Opportunity.

When I was at a GoPro event earlier this year I saw how the crowd reacted to it and it is more than a product, it is now a movement. The little mountable camera is a brilliant example of how innovation can shape the industry structure of digital imaging and created a new path of growth under the radar screen of all big players from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Lumix and others for cameras and the Logitech, Microsoft, HP and others for video cam.

This little wearable camera company did an amazing job (now a US$10 Billion market cap company) invented a completely new category. The digital camera business is in decline while smartphone replacing low end cameras and more affordable DSLR and micro-four-thirds are driving margin out of the industry. GoPro managed to innovate based on a simple unmet needs. A perfect example of taking advantage of a corporate blindspot.

GoPro has been developing wearable technology devices "before they were cool." Nick Woodman developed the first GoPro camera in 2004; it was a film camera that could conveniently be strapped to a person's wrist, allowing users to easily snap a photo of memorable moments in action. So people don’ t need to put their cameras inside a waterproof bag. It’s the age of the selfie, GoPro are enabling video and action selfies. They are the best (and until recently the only) tools to be used to bring authentic and extreme actions to share with everyone. It is an answer to our needs to share moments and capture experiences. It is the defacto adventure broadcast system. The accessories system is impressive and that is part of the reason for their success.

GoPro's success stems from its ability to use consumer experience as advertisement. Customers are basically marketing their products. Otherwise it cost tens of millions to produce those. Now the National Football League is launching a digital streaming network, called NFL Now using GoPro. This NHL season, you'll be able to experience hockey from a whole new perspective -- the players'. The NHL is teaming up with GoPro to provide footage of certain plays from the perspective of goalies and stick handlers. Now you'll be able to experience hockey from a whole new perspective - the players'. Yes, they've just reinvented sports broadcast. Think about it, it is more than a hardware company selling a commoditized product (video camera) that can be easily produced at half the price, and GoPro is not just a sports cam anymore.

GoPro is as much a content and media company as it is a hardware company. GoPro's lightweight HD devices and content management/sharing platform - through GoPro Studio and the GoPro App - enables users to capture, edit, manage, and share. So it is offering a full solution. The barriers for entry to compete with them is very high, it is not just hardware anymore but also brand, content and full suite of editing software. It is in fact in the business of content capture and delivery. In addition to the Xbox, new platforms have enabled GoPro to stream its videos on airline Virgin America through a dedicated channel.

Companies including Garmin, Polaroid, Sony and HTC are all joining game. Their products would have to be overwhelmingly better than GoPro’s for GoPro users to abandon their brand loyalty, which is hard. HTC is playing a different game and the product is uniquely different targeted for the non-consumers. This is a way smarter strategy than Sony and Garmin who try to compete head on. Panasonic's 4K solution was a joke.

HTC’s strategy is like Nintendo’s strategy with Wii in the early days (huge success unfortuantely they couldn't sustain) competing for the non-consumers. They opened up new markets not targeting extreme gamers but for family and casual gamers. HTC RE is playing a similar game and stands a good stance to carve out their niche. Or perhaps that niche is 80% of the market that are non-consumers. How many people actually do extreme sports? 10% or 20%? HTC RE will need to compete on a different model.

The HTC RE is a clean and simple product which is the opposite of GoPro. HTC's design philosophy is that users are all trapped behind the screens of our smartphones when we capture important moments in our lives, whether that's a sports game or a fashion show. HTC RE is lightweight, simple, and out of the way so that allegedly, documenting your life doesn't stop you from missing the experience. It is still very early stage in the game and whether GoPro will continue to dominate the category or it will fade away like the first MP3 player Creative Technology Ltd., we will have to wait and see.

Porductwsie GoPro range has a fixed f/2.8 aperture, the same as the HTC RE Camera, which should good enough in most lowe light conditions. Both feature an ultra-wide angle lens to capture a broader view than point and click cameras or smartphones. Both are supported by a good range of accessories. Both pair up with apps that can be used as remote control and viewfinders. In terms of look... that depends on what you wear. If you wear Roxy, Nike or Columbia you most likely will buy a GoPro. If you wear Y3, G-Star, Converse, Anthropologie or AX, you will most likely buy a HTC RE. Or you can have both.

The Biggest Idea These Days Other Than "Wearables" Is "Destructables". We All Need It.

I think the biggest idea today other than “wearables” is “self-destructables” and it is exactly what we need these days. OK this is the first time you hear this. "Destructables: is the biggest unmet need because privacy just might be the biggest enemy of big data and googleglass. This trend is gaining momentum - think “ephemeral media” which is a way to make any digital assets including photos, texts, emails, posts that can self-destruct once they’re delivered, read or triggered by an event. I would pay for that service.

With the big government always watching and with teenagers having a little too much fun doing silly things, there is something about what we used to see in Charlie’s Angels when the boss messages the Angels about their mission;  they were briefed on a radio that would destroy itself after being played. I think this should be a key feature for everything these days. Yes, there's SnapChat.  But we need more than that.

Encryption Company Silent Circle has a Silent Text app available for Android, which includes a “Burn Notice” feature that self-destructs the message from the sender and recipient’s phone. Startup Burn Note launched its vanishing text and mail service. It allows you to set a timer for how long you want your information to live on the internet before it explodes—virtually, that is.  And even Boeing, yes the airplane manufacturer, has launched a Smartphone that will erase all data and deactivate if tampered with or pried open.

Not sure why Boeing is getting into the cell phone business, BlackBerry should have thought of that feature long time ago.The Boeing’s device which runs on Android and will be sold primarily to government agencies and companies engaged in defense, intelligence and homeland security. The heads of the screws will be covered with tamper proof guards to identify attempted disassembly, breaking open the casing of the device would trigger complete deletion of the data and the device will render itself inoperable. But it will not generate smoke and physically self-destruct - I'm a little disappointed. They should put a bit of drama there as part of the customer experience.

Now 3D Printers Will Become More Affordable. Can You Think Of Something You Want To Print At Home?

There has been a lot of hype on 3D printers at last year CES and now this year I saw tons of competitors offering low-end models as well as high-end professional desktops. XYZprinting Inc. from Taiwan, a new entrant revealed their da Vinci 3D printer with a starting price of just $499, cost as much as a color laser printer a few years back. It is a simple plug-and-play design for small business and personal use. Now I am not sure how often if you need to use one if you’re not a designer. The nice thing is it allows access to a database for free 3D models and 12 different color filaments to choose from. I guess you can print your iPhone case, earings or even chess set. Still hard to think of a reason to own one at home other than novelty.

On the higher end,ChefJet 3D printer and the ChefJet 3D Pro printer costing between $5,00 to $10,000. There is the Solidoodle’s 4th generation printer priced at $999 which I have not tried out. And there is the MakerBot’s Replicator priced at $2,899 but this year they introduced a compact Replicator Mini which will cost $1,375. Another 3D printer maker Cube will be introducing a new model which will be priced under $1,000. We can see these printers selling below $500 in a year as they will get aggressive in pricing to gain market share. The quesion remain what is the reason to own one?

I don’t think the business is in home 3D printers, the real money is in the business market such as the ability to print spare parts, or complete part without assembly and complex inner structures too difficult to be machined. 3D printing makes it possible to manufacture pretty much anything in just 5-10 hours depending what you’re printing, and, as you can surely imagine, this capability would come in very handy in product parts which sometimes take days to locate and ship due to inventory supply issues. A piece of equipment breaks and your repair technician can print it for you.

3D printing has attracted a lot of interest but still at it's infancy, the material science necessary for a lot of these claims about printing tooth or even human organs just isn't there yet. You can't use the same plastic or metal for different parts. It comes down to different tolerances and they are critical. So we’re a few years away. And we will get there.

What Is Happening To Sony? Can Sony Be Saved?

2013 was a good year and a very busy one for me. Having been on the road for over 120 days; delivered some great projects and worked with some of the smartest and most creative people around the world was all fun and also exhausted. Now is the time to think about what the future holds?

I really don’t know what to write these days, I want to write about a lot of things from economics to politics and from luxury brands to consumer electronics and from rethinking management to education, so much to do and so little time. I hardly find time to write for my own magazine these days.

2014 will be a year of big change or beginning of one for many.. We’re seeing most dominant designs of our everyday technologies reaching the end of the S-curve and it will hard to see any breakthrough unless we change the way to look at the industries. Some big innovation is needed to create demand. Not speakers and headphones and other accessories although it helps retailers a bit.

Innovation is hard to come these days and most innovations today are mostly incremental in nature. In the world of consumer technologies, from smartphones to tablets and PCs or digital cameras to TVs, everyone one of them is facing serious challenges whether you’re the market leaders (defenders) or followers (attackers). It is hard to drive new behavior and predict on their adoption rate and the low end is flooed with commodty players. On the other side of the coins, opportunities are plentiful. Microsoft, Sony, HP are all in the process of rethinking their business strategies.

Sony was once the most loved and most innovative company. The company is both strategically vertically and horizontally integrated; once designed and produced the best TVs, video cameras, music players, home audio systems and game console, today they are struggling on all fronts. Sony was my no. 1 brand for a long time. For many, Sony is already dead or what turned into I call a zombie brand. It might seems like an overly pessimistic view given the size of the company and they still have a lot of good products, strong brand (in some markets) and a lot of technological innovation, but then what went wrong?

Sony used to be the synonymous with Japan and innovative products. They even considered buying Apple at one point and decided it not worth acquiring (Can't imagine if they've done that and there would be no Apple today). In 2012, Sony’s net loss of almost US$6 billion mainly came from heavy losses in its TV business. Of all eight divisions, only music and financial services units managed to boost a little profit from a year ago.

When I visited Sony stores the last time a few weeks ago, they were so 1990s even though some of the products are pretty impressive. In fact, I was very impressed with the latest camera line-up and I use a RX100 along my Leica M. I am not sure if good products are enough these days.

Sony have made a lot of mistake including alienated smaller retailers, limit itself to internal innovation capability insteadn of using outside consultants to come up with new ideas and heavily rely on local markets (30% of their sales) and as a result ignore what’s going on out there. Sony CEO Kaz Hirai has proclamed that Sony must chart a new course, his quote: "I believe Sony can change." So far it is not happening.

This Japan's technological prowess, wowed the world with the Walkman and Trinitron TV and PS2 and PSP is now struggling to stay relevant. Is it just Sony or "Japan Inc." that is in trouble?  They missed the while digital music wave, missed the smarphone wave, missed the tablet wave, missed the social face and now probably will miss the next whatever wave. Even Google missed the social wave and left the door opened for Facebook and Twitter, but they do have a few wins such as Android.

And for Sony, my advise for you is to stop behaving like a Japanese company. Adopt new practices and move fast. Speed kills. The world has changed and you need to wake-up. Play catching up is not enough and you’ve been doing a good job producing a decent tablet, a nice phone and a set-top box, a not so smart smart watch and whatever, does it matter?

You don’t have a strategy. You want to win in every product category and that's impossible. You should get rid of at least 50% of your product lines. And at least make 10% of your product spectacular ones - iconic. Rethink if you want to play in the smartphone game, may be you should exit it for now.  Your strategy of “One Sony,” will not work, it is an ideal strategy only on power point or paper. Apple works with “One Apple,” but if you consider the context of Sony's situation, it may not be the best move for now. Sony needs to think different and should not make the mistake of try to replicate Samsung or Apple, those two companies are unique in their own ways. The two will own the market (already did) and eat you dinner, since they already took your breakfast and lunch. 2014 is a critical year for Sony.

Can't Wait For The Day That We Can Make Calls On A Flight. But Don't Want To See Everyone Doing That. Perhaps A 5-Minute Rule Should Apply.

The job of the air-stewards will be tougher as the Federal Communications Commission considers give a green light for the use of smartphones on airplanes above 10,000 feet. They are now seeking public opinion but will likely to be welcomed by most. The agency has already lifted restrictions for devices, such as e-readers and tablets to be used during take-off and landing. Next you can make calls and check emails as long as the plane is above 10,000 ft. I can’t imagine 50% of people talking and shouting into their phones and suddenly the cabin will be turned into stock market trading floor.

Gogo Text & Talk will launch early next year and Gogo is working hard testing the applications before its first major release next year. This service is not likely to be cheap. For 24 hours of continuous access on the same airline, Gogo charges $14 per passenger. For unlimited monthly use of Gogo Wi-Fi on any Gogo-equipped flight, Gogo charges $50. If initial access costs $14, Gogo will likely to charge those users an extra $10 or more to annoy their fellow passengers by talking and texting. It can make travelling very productive and honestly no one wants to be off the grid especially for long flights. But no one wants to listen to other speaking while you try to get some sleep. It is the traveller's dilemma. We need something like a 5-minute rule for each call. Social etiquette needs to be developed and adopted, otherwise flight experience will be far worse than today's.

In Europe, the European Commission last week adopted new rules to allow people to use devices with 3G and 4G data connections. Previously, the agency only allowed 2G wireless services to be used aboard flights above 3000 meters. They will next decide whether talking on your smartphones will be allowed. It won’t stop here. We will have people walking around with googleglass, go-pro cams and all kind of wearables and suddenly flying is never the same again. I can’t wait to see that.

Here’s an innovation opportunity for this unmet needs, design a head-set with microphone that works like a helmet and once you put it on no one can hears you talk. It is kind of a like wearable personal phone-booth like the one below. We've been working on one for years.

What's Next BlackBerry? You Need A Plan. You Can Have A Future. But You Need To Think Radical.

I am a BlackBerry Fan. Or I was. Big one too! It is one of the best innovations for the working professional. I missed the old flywheel BlackBerry that I can throw it across the room and it survives. I was really hoping they could turn the company around and have a real strategy. The problem remains that the management is so disconnected with the real world and the engineering focus overshadowed the needs to create something beyond just a good user experience. The BlackBerry Z10 is a beauty. But that's not enough.

I don’t think the Fairfax deal is a good one. Fairfax, which already owns 10% of BlackBerry, plans to pay $9 per share for the company, about 3% more than its closing price which I think is way undervalue. So what does the company worth? There is no right answer.

Blackberry assets include 1/cash 2/patent portfolio 3/real estate and jet 4/software all add together and then minus any long-term debt and liability. Their hardware business pretty much worths nothing. The math is not hard. 1,2 and 3 are easy to value. Software is not so simple. WhatsApp claims to have 250 million active users, and they are now a paid application. BBM, on the other hand, is free and have more compelling features. BBM can make money from this if they know how to play the game. It is not the BBM customers that they used to know. I think they have good chance to play in the OTT communication game on cross-platform devices.

The radical rethink of BBM can create a survival plan and could easily bring in $350-400mm a year and would contribute about $0.50 in earnings per share (EPS) and be worth roughly $6 per share (using 12x earnings).

Patent is a secret treasure chest. In addition to patenting their won technologies, BlackBerry has also bought tons of patents from the bankrupt Nortel and other stast-ups and spend time developing a whole new operating system. Typically patents last 20 years from the date of their application, making BlackBerry’s 3.6 year average very attractive. BlackBerry’s 9,268 granted patents could worth between $3 to $4 per share depending how intense the bidding and that makes already $10. Now add roughly $1.5 billion plus in cash (after write-down) and the sale of building and the jet. The very minimum the company is worth $13 a share. Lenovo is happy to pay that but Canadian goverment might not like the idea.

China cellphone maker/start-up Xiaomi latest funding round values it at $10 billion. That’s nearly two times BlackBerry’s current value. It is currently the sixth-biggest smartphone producer in China. Clearly, its strategy of selling high-spec smartphones at low-spec smartphone prices is paying off quite well. Blackberry has a lot to learn from other companies. Blackberry were distracted by Apple and being dragged into a no-win game. The company was operating with yesterday’s operating system in terms of strategy and don't understand how fast the world is moving. It was destined to fail. There is still a slim hope. You need to think radical.

For Disclosure. I personally hold BlackBerry shares and Blackberry bought research services from Idea Couture at one time.

Creativity In The Workplace. It's Is More Than Just Colorful Furnitures. Yes, The Space Matters But There Is More.

For all those cash-rich companies such as Apple, Google and Facebook, there is a race to hire celebrity architects to design their headquarters. Google headquarters consists of nine angled buildings connected by bridges. Reportedly, the idea was based on data collected from Google employees’ behavior which then translated into some kind of architectural algorithm that should produce “casual collisions” to make innovation happen more often. I am not buying this, well they are. I guess when you have too much money to play with. When 3D virtual conferencing technology comes to market, these companies will be the early adopters. Expect cool walk-in facilities outfitted with wall-sized screens that project 360-degree views of video conference participants from different offices or countries.
The last time business attempted to reinvent the workplace was during the dot.com days when many companies switched from cubicles to open offices in order to improve collaboration and encourage impromptu problem solving. Today, millennials demand more personal workspace flexibility (actually they demand many things too) – the ability to adapt a workstation or stand at their desks. Standing work is happening everywhere as much as working on a couch. In addition to personal storage and personal expression, companies need to accommodate for this preference. At Idea Couture, standing desk is becoming so popular (not sure I remember who in our office started that) and now I see people standing, jumping while typing (wearing their Fitbits) and talking on the phone.

I really can’t wait for the day when we start banning standard cubicles and those headache-inducing white fluorescent lights. Those light scan literally gives me migraine. I wish those standard cubicles would join the ranks of the fax machine and the time-punch clock. It just might happen, thanks to Google, Apple and Pixar and others who have started to embrace the idea of cool workspaces designed to stimulate creativity and inspire innovation. I don’t mean those that put up colorful wallpaper and a few beanbags; that's no better than a cubicle. Workspaces can be stressful environments and it is important to think about how we can design to reduce stress, not just create colorful eye-candy.

Most workspace stress can come from any physical conditions that you perceive as irritating, frustrating, uncomfortable or unpleasant. Common sources of workspace stress include poor lighting, noisy backgrounds, lack of fresh air and poor climate conditions. But the biggest potential stress is other people. Difficult people can cause so much stress, particularly with the demand for team collaboration. Can a cool office space solve this problem? Perhaps to a certain small degree.

Physical workspaces have a profound impact on increasing not just productivity but also team creativity and collaboration. That’s part of the reason why Google and Facebook designed their offices with people sitting side-by-side and no partitions between them. An open environment radiates a sense of community where creative spaces calm people down and remind them there is a creative solution to any problem. Cubicles remind you that the office is a machine and you must processes and procedures.If your company isn't thinking about how workspace design can improve collaboration, chances are you are stuck in the 80s. This is a good forum to debate on this subject on how creativity is endangered in New York Time.

These days everyone wants to collaborate with each other (those who can't are pretty much considered unemployable); the average employee actively participates in at least five different ad hoc teams simultaneously, and we can expect that number to rise. Creative workplace design that supports collaboration will be part of the new productivity index. And you don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money, perhaps let's start with a policy for pets ... creativity starts here.

Wearables That Promiss To Make Us Smarter. What's Next?

Do you wonder how we measure brain activity? Our brains communicate through the cell sending tiny electric signals to each other and the more signals the more electricity it will produce. An EEG can measure the pattern of this electrical activity. There are some who believe that if we stimulate certain part of the brain (pre-frontal cortex) will improve certain functions. For years, there had been experiments of stimulating the brain using small electric currents and see if it can make us thinker better or smarter.

Some believe the results are temporarily and some belief that it helps us overtime and the impact is long lasting. Not enough studies to prove it but expect products like this availabe in the market as werables soon. But attaching dozens electrodes to your head that shock your brain, a new product called Foc-us headset is designed for gamers (18 years and older and have $249 to spend) promise to make you a better gamer.

If it can do that to gaming, then it should work for other brain activities too. I can see a high end version for stock brokers and probably one for hedge fund manafers too. So far, scientists have tested the technology, but mainly to figure out if it's has any effect but no idea of prolonged use. Brain enhancement wearables can be a big thing and it is like Viagra for the brain.

A recent study published in the journal PLOS ONE, it examines how to identify emotions without relying on people's ability to express themselves. It could be used to assess an individual's emotional response to almost any kind of stimulus including faces, advertising or products. The idea is based on the assumptions that different people tend to neutrally encode emotions in similar ways. The researchers believed that is the case. In the future, wearable means literally wearing our emotions on our sleeves. The method for brain stimulation here istDCS, for transcranial direct current stimulation, and it's a brain stimulation method that involves sending ultra low amounts of electrical current through various parts of the brain to achieve different effects. You probably have seen this in movies for medical treatment and it has been used since 1804.

Actually the design of the device is not complicated, The tDCS enthusiast community is also blossoming, especially considering that stimulation can be replicated with do-it-yourself electrodes and over-the-counter batteries and perhaps it is the next iPhone and we will all be wearing one around with downloadable apps for stocks picking, chessgame, dating, anti-repression, golfing, negotiating and fishing. The competition to become strataight As students will depend on which werables that you use.

The Future of Wearables? Everyone Will Get It Wrong. And The Winner Won't Be Google, Apple, Sony Or Microsoft.

Wearable is hot. It is supper hot. The billion-dollar question remains, “How do we create the iPhone of wearables?” and “How do we create sub-ecosystems around these wearables?” and "What new business model opportunities will emerge?" The buzz is here but the money is not here yet. Everyone is betting on it and no one can afford to miss the train. Most wearable out there are just toys for the geeks. I can't find a reason anyone wants to buy this Sony Watch. Wll now everyone can see my Facebook messages. What is dumb idea! OK I can use it to tell time and the weather.  Apple’s iWatch or whatever it will be called and Google Glass are getting so much attention and everything is figuring out what are the high value potential applications. Google has openly promoted its potential as an always-on, always with you computing device but it has yet to find a killer application beyond the obvious. They are hoping someone out there can figure that out for them.

And China is watching and Baidu is rumored to be working on a "Baidu Eye," an internal code name for a wearable device that features speech recognition for Mandarin, as well as image search technology, which pulls up relevant information based on a photo. So if you see a product, it will search for product info and price and availability. That take 'showrooming' to a new level.

 
The path to mass adoption for wearables will not be a straight-forward one and there are technology, user behavior and production economics barriers to cross.  Apple, Google, Samsung, Sony and LG are all committed to play this game. Apple recently acquired a small company Passif Semiconductor founded by two Ph.D. students from the University of Berkeley, worked on developing chips with radios that consume very little power and work with the Bluetooth Smart (a.k.a 4.0 and low energy) standard. The acquisition will provide Apple with addition al expertise and expect an acquisition boom as players gearing up for the big game.

With all these buzz and emerging innovative conceptual designs competing for the dominant design there are still many questions to be asked about what the future holds and how consumers will adopt different product paradigm. Even the smartphone itself is still shaping our behavior today and we are still actively reprogramming ourselves. Smartphone is becoming the operation system of our professional and personal life and our relationships with the outside world and emerging systems around it.  And when it comes to Operating System, the main battle will be an OS that will interoperate across all devices. This is the big play.

Expect to see all sorts of novelty design coming into the market. There are lots of novelties out there including a wearable electronic synthesizers to be embedded into T-shirts turning them into human musical instruments. There are also people using neurophysiological signals and brain waves to play video games. These will never be mainstream wearables.

The success of any dominant design for wearables will be based on successfully tackling of the 3Bs: Balance, Benefit and Beauty.

Balance: The design of the wearables needs to fulfil the requirements of fitting comfortly with our bodies and many human factors considerations. The design needs to include studying the anthropometric measures of the human body and of the equilibriums between the various zones of the body. The connection between the physical form of wearables and their active relationship with the human form will be key to the concept success. These nerdy high-tech design will not cut it. Other considerations include comfort, the design to adapt to different body type (male vs female, tall vs short) and study of non-obtrusive shapes and the optimal conditions to let the sensors work well.

Benefit: The designers must first determine the real problem the wearable concept is trying to solve and needing to solve and able to solve. The benefit doesn’t have to be a known benefit today and could be some needs user don’t even know they exist until they see it. The design can open up new possibilities for people and  must fit within the context of the user’s lifestyle and experience and the infrastructure around us.

Beauty:  Consumer needs to love the design. It needs to have the visual appeal that the user won’t look like something you see in a Sci-Fi movie. It needs to be expressive and it doesn’t only limit to the form factor, but the overall interactive experience. The connectivity piece is key it needs to allow for seamless wireless connection. The interactions or interface design is the most tricky one. Are we thinking touch screens, gestures or eye tracking?

More next week. I won't tell you what works. I can tell you what definitely won't work. And like everyone else, I could be also be wrong.

What Do You Want A Smart Watch To Do For You? Or Do You Really Need One?

So you’ve bought yourself a Pebble and you're showing off to your friends. May be you’re even one of those thousands of people who crowd funded them for over $10m in pre-orders last year. In that case you will be among the first to receive $150 slim devices that you can read e-mail, text and Facebook messages that sent from your Smartphone.  I really can’t think of a good reason to get one.

I’ve seen dozens of different smart watches and most of them are cool at a glance, but very limited in function and I can’t see them becoming mainstream. There are others playing the game including Apple’s iWatch, ConnecteDevice (Cookoo watch), I’m Watch, and Sony’s SmartWatch and many others. I’m pretty sure, though, that people saying smart watches will replace smart phones at some point are way too optimistic, it is hard to predict the technology dynamics and how our behavior will evolve, but I am quite confident that it won't be a watch. Sorry Apple.

Apple probably have over 150 engineers and designers working on the development and hopefully to bring something to the market in 12-16 months. It will be the first post-Jobs product/platform and everyone is watching. People will buy because it is an Apple, but can it sustain itself and becoming a success is indeed a big question? I don’t like the watch idea for a number of reasons. First it is purely a novelty and too gimmicky. It is a totally new behavior to read text messages or email from your watch and no reason I need to alter my current behavior. Ok it has a touch screen, big deal. My smartphone is just fine. The smartwatch is at best a niche category.

Any innovation needs to anchor on unmet needs, not cool technology. Apple needs to decide what problem it is trying to solve. It might need to switch to a new interaction paradigm to see the opportunity differently. Apple is too stuck with the world of Apple. I believe there’s no stopping the trend of wearables and but don’t expect to see a clear winner anytime soon. The market potential is huge.

While analysts are expecting people to purchase about 15 million wearable devices this year and growing year after year, but they can’t tell you what that device looks like. We need to examine different adoption barriers and drivers that impact how wearables could bring along next platform wars. It goes beyond sensor and interactions into voice play. Mobile voice recognition, one of the thousands of artificial-intelligence applications, could reach one billion in 2017 from $73 million today, according to ABI Research. AT&T has devoted more than 1 million hours of research to develop AmI technology that can convert speech into text, and deliver responses to spoken questions. The future is exciting. And the future is here. And the future is unknown.

Many Made The Mistake Of Taking the Brand Out Of The Innovation Equation On The Fuzzy Front-End. Are You One Of Them?

Companies make many mistakes in their innovation journeys and often they go down the same path again and again and wonder why that is the case. The four main reasons among many are:

1/ They think it is all about creativity and coming up with more ideas.

Coming up with ideas is easy. Coming with good ideas is not difficult. Coming up with more ideas is not helpful. It is the quality of ideas and once ideas are being exhausted, it is time to perform the more difficult job of sensemaking and mapping. This is where most people fail and have no ideas of what and how to do next. They lack a framework of synthesizing these concepts into bigger themes and look at them in a differently way to see how each of ideas-system means to the customers, business and industry.

2/ They think innovation should be separated from the brand. Often people start thinking of new ideas without thinking without understanding the scope and scale requirements and that should be governed by the brand.

These ideas need to link to the current brand or masterbrand in whatever ways and has the potential to scale within a reasonable period of time. No established companies, unless for a very good reason, should start a new brand because of economic reasons and also the brand can be the powerful source to inspire innovation, in addition to the users or customers. Otherwise people can waste a lot of time and realize even they have a good idea, the marketing investment will cost too much making the project not worth pursuing. On the opposite, they also should not confused brand extension or other incremental innovation as strategic innovation.

3/ They think their current capabilities (including that of their agencies) are adequate and can do the job. The learning curve for them is too steep.

In many cases, companies have existing working relationships with their advertising agencies and marketing research firms and naturally would want to work with them on innovation projects. This is a bad decision as for the advertising agencies, they are too deeply embedded with the existing idea of what the brand is and should do rather than a fresh way of looking at it. And most marketing communications people and not equipped to manage the innovation process. Some innovation firm is basically ex-advertising agencies people repackaged themselves as innovation consultants (there are some occastions people successfully migrate). Most marketing research firms are not equipped with the right tools to do research that support innovation, and end up applying the usual quantitative and qualitative research methodologies which were designed for market testing and tracking.

To unlock the full power of applied creativity to drive innovation and economic value, let’s not approach innovation with overly simplified approach to getting the magic and bringing in the money. There is no magic in the innovation process, no one should hide behind this magic black box and the client expect them to show up one day with some magical ideas and then write them a check. Innovation is about applying design thinking and having all the right type of people and capabilities in place.

4/ They are confused between strategic visions, brand and innovation and what comes first?

Executives spend a lot of time on strategic vision – answering questions such as who we are, what we do and what do we want to be when we grow up etc. Then they trying to figure what the brand really stands for. At the same time they also spend time on creating new products and service ideas? What usually happens next is now they struggle bringing the two together to use?

When people hear about vision, they think of it as something that guides the company into the future, and to succeed in the future requires innovation. And innovation is about building a powerful brand and create new market space for the future. While the value of having some kind of strategic vision is obvious, it should never be mistaken as strategy. Strategy is not only about vision, it is about strategic innovation. And brand should guide innovation. It is so easy to get confused.

Moving forward companies need to do two things differently.

1/ Reorient their brand people with the idea that brand needs to get beyond communications. My new book 60-Minute Brand Strategist shows readers step-by-step guide to build a brand from the core and its meanings to customer experience design. Brand Managers should not be stuck in the old world with old-school approach and brand-building model developed in the 80s and take on the roles as Brand Innovators. Every brand manager’s jobs should have two roles: managing brand business performance and managing brand innovation.

2/ Rethink what kind of people and skills that is needed to implement innovation. Implementation innovation is 10X harder is coming up with the ideas and it requires more than a product development person. They need to understand the different roles that they have already – and will need – on the team and each role’s importance in the ideation and activation stages. Idea Couture research on innovation practices shows that many business leaders still believe that innovation is a rare gift that exists mainly in creative people who are in leadership roles or gifted creatively. For example, just think of how often you hear people saying, “That’s why I get paid the big bucks because I am the big idea guy.” Such thinking is not healthy as it usually means that organizations are overlooking other, much better sources of potential innovation. An idea, even a big idea, is not the same as an innovation. Only when an idea is turned in to a product, a service or a business that creates new value can it be considered an innovation. Whether the innovative idea is radical, substitutive, incremental, or complementary, it still needs to fit into the stages of a value chain within an industry.

On another note, my book 60-min Brand Strategist is offically launched this month. It is available in Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book stores. These are some pages taken from the book. It only takes you 60 minutes to read through it. I know you're busy. Share with me your thoughts.

Will The Facebook Phone works? And For Microsoft and Samsung, The Future Of Smartphones Is Dual-Screen.

The Facebook phone is here.The Facebook phone rumor has been around for a while and it is a matter of time it becomes real. I think they should have done it earlier and should have larger ambition other than just trying to design a ‘home’ for Android.  Home sounds like a PaaS personalization tool and not sure how many FB users will want this. FB see the potential for them but it is hardly a threat for others but Android might modify their terms so this won’t happen again in the future.

With FB already commands more than 20% share of people's time on mobile devices (excluding Instagram), it can further boost FB mobile usage particular for younger users. Will FB take over 20% of all Android phones, we have yet to find out. For now, FB is pretty convinced that people will want a phone designed around it and perhaps with additional hardware feature that is uniquely FB. 

FB should really be making its own phone, it is reported that they are working with mobile chipmaker Spreadtrum to pre-optimize its software for the cheapest Android handsets. It is hard to compete on the high end with Samsung and Apple, if Facebook prodcued its own low end phone, though, it could create a new business model in the mobile market and FB could negotiate better data plans for their members or partially subsidize them with advertising. This is not easy for Facebook to jump in and get carriers to agree to sell its phone.  For me, I see no reason to have a FB phone.

For Microsoft, they are waiting to see how well Nokia's Lumia phones Windows Phone 8x and 8s sell before making a strategic decision to enter the smartphone market on its own. I think it makes perfect sense for them to decide to play in the hardware space. They have made that decision with  Surface tablets. It is a matter of time that they will play in this smartphone market, they risk becoming irrelevant as market is switching into different computing format.

Microsoft is thinking dual-screen and has applied to patent a dual-screen phone interface. One screen for device interface and the other as a monitor and is detachable. NEC is making one and is marketing them as the "best cloud device," the dual-screen Android from NEC handset also has a super powered battery to keep both displays running.

It will be interesting to see what can we do with two screens. We're already designing dualscreen user experience models and I think this is catch on. The mobile industry is changing faster than anyone could have imagined and the interface paradigms there have been static. Here is the opportunity for us to introduce new ways of interacting with others and new ways these machines can understand what we need.