Forget IQ, what’s your CQ?

Last week, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman wrote an essay on “The Creativity Crisis”. In the short but compelling read, the authors describe the “Torrance kids”—a longitudinal study that has tracked 400 Minneapolis children for over 50 years with the goal of understanding the impact of high creativity potential. As a part of the study, the children performed a 90 minute series of tasks to assess their creativity. And for the past 50 years, the leaders of the study have tracked those children in great detail…”recording every patent earned, every business founded, every research paper published, and every grant awarded…”

Recently, university professors have analyzed the initial Torrance data set (along with the results of 100,000s of Torrance scores) and have found the predictive accuracy of the Torrance test to be highly accurate. Kids who scored high on the Torrance test did grow up to achieve more creatively in their lifetimes, and the correlation between childhood creativity and lifetime creativity is higher than that for childhood IQ. Some more interesting revelations include:

1) Americans are getting less creative!
With IQ scores, each generation scores a little better. However, American creativity scores on the Torrance test peaked in 1990, and have fallen significantly since then. Of particular concern, the scores of elementary school age children (kindergarten through 6th grade) have declined the most.

2) Education reform is not helping!
Whereas many other countries have focused on greater creativity development in school curricula, US education programs are doing just the opposite. The shift towards nationalized testing and rote memorization enables greater standardization (which is positive) but has also limited the ability of schools to allot time to creative-oriented classes.

3) Creativity is NOT a right-brained activity!
Recent neuroscience studies indicate that creativity actually requires both sides of your brain. In solving problems, your left brain activates first to find answers based on prior solutions. If none exist, your right brain turns on to find more disparate info, making it available for your left brain to scan for unusual answers or meanings. If something comes to the fore, the left brain focuses and pulls together the idea.

On my engagements, I’m always a little miffed when the client basically equates innovation with creativity. The challenge often is not creativity, but a genuine interest in implementing something more risky and outside of the core. But as I reflect on this article, I cannot underestimate the value of problem solving techniques that meld divergent and convergent thinking in driving innovation. And if that is at the heart of “creativity”, then 1) we really should treat declining creativity scores as a crisis and 2) we should make greater investments not only in Math and Science education but creativity education as well.

The New Meaning of Value

For the past 18 months, “value” has been the primary marketing focus for most consumer facing companies. Dollar menus at McDonalds and $1.50 coffee at Starbucks. Tide Basic and Charmin Basic from P&G. “Expect More, Pay Less" at Target was timely.

But now the economy is starting to turn around. The Dow was above 11,000 just the other week, and all of my banker friends are gainfully employed (a leading indicator). People in turn are starting to spend again, as evidenced by the 500,000 people who stood in line for a new iPad during the weekend it was released. These are all proof points that “value” going forward will need to be created through other drivers, not just low cost.

So in this revitalized economic environment, what is another compelling way to create value? For me, it’s free time.

Time is my most precious resource. Work often requires me to be in two, if not three, cities in any given week. That requires a lot of time on the road, and so when I’m not working, I want to minimize my time doing errands and other things that detract from my ability to remain balanced (e.g. friends, gym, sleep).

To “create” time, I do a lot of little things: autopay bills, order dinner delivery, have groceries shipped, Amazon.com everything possible. Every bit makes a difference. But really, none of these things are unique.

How can you take it up a notch? Consider some of the things that some of my friends (notably Alan) have been doing to eliminate mundane tasks:

1) Alice. Imagine if you never had to go to Walgreens for basic household items, like toothpaste and toilet paper. Just setup an account at Alice. All the products are well-known brands, such as Tide and Windex, and coupons happen automatically. The convenience is amazing.

2) Manpacks. What if you never had to go to store to replace your underwear? Manpacks allows you to buy basic stuff—t-shirts, socks, and underwear—based on what you believe is your pace . It’s a premium service, but I love the convenience.

Along with Netflixing videos, these are just a few examples of what I call “consumer auto-replenishment” business models. Help me get things I need at the right place and at the right time, without forcing me to think about it. That’s value to me, and I have a high willingness to pay for it.

Beware of great ideas

I recently presented to the C-suite of a Fortune 1000 manufacturing company about the results of our latest project. It was a business strategy effort, one that would enable a series of new growth platforms that would put the company back on the path of being more services oriented and innovation forward. Analyzing their customers’ needs, value chain, and relevant business models, we came up with literally hundreds of ideas and pared those down to short set of customer-validated business concepts.

The problem: Certain members of the team wanted to spend more time vetting the hundreds of ideas. They wanted to see what every single idea was, in hopes of finding the one amazing, never-thought-of idea that was going to reverse their fortunes.

So here was my take home message: Be less of a company of great Ideas, be more of a company of great I-dos.

The fact of the matter is every company is filled with great ideas. From R&D to marketing to customer service, executives and front line staff are exposed to new perspectives everyday that result in new ideas. The challenge is converting those ideas to things that your company will actually do and make money from. In fact, when speaking with your colleagues about the latest innovation in your industry, how many times have you heard someone say:

“Yea, we came up with that idea too, but we never did anything with it.”

“We thought of that, but we didn’t think the market would be big enough.”

“We just don’t have a process for getting ideas like that off the ground.”

So, be a company of great I-dos. Here’s 5 ways to make it happen:

1) Set up a two pizza team
Jeff Bezos of Amazon is famous for putting together small teams to solve interesting business opportunities. How small is the team? If it takes more than two pizzas to feed the team, the team is too big.

2) Think about the bundle, not the individual ideas
Companies often have 100s of ideas that can solve a particular need, the challenge is to create a short, compelling bundle and identify the customer experience that bundle enables.

3) Figure out the near-term business model
Instead of imagining how you might make money in 5 years, analyze how you can onramp to real profits in 12 to 18 months. This will put pressure on your team to determine what's real (and what's not).

4) Identify the lock-in component
If you’re going to create a new business, add a component that ensures that your customer won’t leave when your competition creates a me-too solution. What can you give away?

5) Identify the uncertainties
At the initial phase, figure out what pieces of the idea to verify to get to the next stage of concepting. Build a path toward resolving those uncertainties, esp. in a strategic options or affordable loss fashion.

What makes a good design strategist?

Yesterday, I attended a meeting convened by the Parsons School of Design regarding their Design Strategies program. Bringing together a variety of design and business luminaries from across the world, the event was designed to better understand how to reframe one of Parsons' more unique undergraduate degrees, which allows students to obtain a business degree in a design school.

As a part of the discussion, the facilitator of the meeting asked the attendees: What do you look for when you are hiring designers?

In answering this question, I had to reflect upon my experiences as an MBA from a very traditional business school (Wharton). I also thought about my experiences working with designers (good and bad) at various Fortune 500 companies. And I had to consider the successes and failures of Peer Insight’s own hiring efforts, which have included McKinsey consultants, investment bankers, and young talent straight out of design school.

What I realized was this: whether it’s someone with a business background or a design background, the fundamentals of a successful hire are the same when it comes to this niche world of design and innovation.

First and foremost, the potential hire has to demonstrate the hard skills that are associated with his or her educational and professional background. Someone with a business background has demonstrate facility with numbers, understand common business frameworks, and complete a basic competitive analysis. If it’s a design person, they have to know the basics of observational research, have some inclination toward human factors, and have a working knowledge of communication, interaction, or product design.

But the extra “special sauce” that a hire has to demonstrate is a potential for whole-brained thinking, or allowing “design to speak business, and business to speak design”. This is at the heart of the challenges we at Peer Insight are asked to engage on, which are often multi-disciplinary, cross-functional, and new-to-the-world.

Candidates who provide the special sauce often demonstrate three characteristics:

1. Communicate Effectively: to audiences from business and non-business backgrounds, at junior and senior levels, through oral, written, and presentation methods
   
   
2. Think Integratively: beyond the core frameworks and foundations they were taught to create new ways of thinking and new models of proof
   
   
3. Lead Amazingly: Show potential to be a change leader in challenging environs, where resistance is common, and the burden of proof is high
   

Effectively hiring for these types of people can be challenging. Despite intensive case methods used by consulting firms and design portfolios reviewed by agencies in interviews, the practical reality is that these three characteristics cannot be easily discerned.

Attend my webinar on Corporate Design

On March 3rd, my colleague, Jeneanne Rae, and I will be co-hosting a webinar with the Design Management Institute (DMI).

Entitled "Corporate Design Functions: 2010 and Beyond", we will be answering three key questions:

1. What lessons did new corporate design functions learn in the past decade?
2. What challenges will corporate design functions face in the coming decade?
3. What best practices should corporate design functions consider going forward?
   

There is a small fee to attend, but I want to assure you that I make a grand total of $0 off the webinar. All fees go to DMI to cover the costs of the webinar, and they are a great organization. Hopefully, you can join me online; I am working on some very interesting content.

Introducing the iPad (it's not what you think it is)

Earlier today, Steve Jobs officially announced the iPad, a tablet device that looks like an iPhone with a large 9.7 inch screen. For pessimists, the iPad is just an amped up version of an iTouch that falls short of true laptop capabilities (like running multiple programs at the same time). For optimists, the iPad will revolutionalize the publishing industry in the same way that the iPod revolutionalized the music industry (introducing iBooks, the literary equivalent of iTunes).

What do I think?

1. Bad name!
   I'm not the first one to mention this, but there must be a substantial dearth of female engineers at Apple. Despite Apple's great branding efforts in the past, the choice of iPad as the product name (as opposed to iSlate or any more female-friendly options) really shows a lack of customer research. As a female CNBC anchor mentioned: I don't like it...it reminds me of feminine products!"
   
   
2. Slow Rate of Adoption
   The iPad doesn't appear to represent the technology leap or experience improvement that would encourage the level of immediate mass adoption which drove the iPhone's dramatic success. In addition, the price point ($499 to $829) is substantially higher than a subsidized iPhone. In all likelihood, consumers who have been on the fence about buying a second computer, such as a netbook, will probably be among those to purchase one first.
   
   
3. e-Reading Gamechanger?
   I believe that the iPad will emerge as a dominant e-Book option for those who haven't committed to a Kindle. With numerous apps to download, plus video, iTunes & true web capability, the iPad provides substantially more utility than an e-Reader. And unlike the music industry, the publishing industry is excited to provide digital content, with 5 of the 6 major publishing houses already onboard for iBooks. The problem: the unmet need of quality e-Book reading has been already solved.
   

In the end, Steve Jobs reminds me of James Cameron. Both gentleman seem to defy the odds and tremendous amounts of schadenfreude to produce truly impressive masterpieces. And if Cameron can generate an unprecedented level of success with Avatar, a movie that many critics and the public ridiculed before its release, then perhaps Jobs can transform book publishing too.

Google Nexus One: Big innovation or big bust?

Like many people, I’ve been closely monitoring the buzz around Google Nexus One (or the Google phone), which was released on January 5th. As an innovation consultant, I am excited about what Google is trying to do in the cell phone space. As a technology enthusiast, I like to see the “new new”. And as a Verizon phone user, I’ve been waiting for a good, non-Blackberry phone for a long time.

A few weeks after the release, here is what’s apparent about the good and the not so good with the Nexus One:

The Good

1) Great hardware/software solution
To make the best integrated solution possible, Google worked with HTC to produce a custom device. As a result, the Nexus One has a more attractive form factor than the Motorola Droid, as well as seamless inclusion of Google software, like Google Maps and Gmail.

2) Unique direct sales model
Unlike other phones, Nexus One can only be purchased on Google’s website. The wireless carriers (e.g. T-Mobile, Verizon) and the location of their brick & mortar stores are no longer a consideration in your phone purchase.

3) Transformative business model
Adding more salt to the wound, the Nexus One can be bought unlocked for $529. Whereas the wireless carriers want to lock consumers into their service by buying their subsidized phones, Google is seeking to break the device/carrier contract paradigm and give people true freedom of choice.

Imagine a world where you can own amazing phone service, without any limitation in phone options, and never sign up for a two year phone contract again…dare we say, Google is creating cell phone Nirvana?

The Not So Good

1) Bad customer service
With a normal cell phone, a customer can just call the wireless carrier or go to a store if something happens. But this is not an option for Nexus One. And with some early adopters facing spotty service coverage and defective screens—without a live service rep to speak with—the Nexus One has produced many service complaints.

2) Early termination fee
Just like the wireless carriers, Google also charges an early termination fee of $350. Although the fee has a softer name (Google prefers “equipment recovery fee”), there is no doubt that Google is pursuing the same tactics as their wireless coopetitors. Et tu, brute?

3) Not really new
Although “freedom of choice” is as American an ideal as apple pie, the practical reality is that Europeans already buy their phones unlocked. Consequently, Google’s business model play is not as novel as rumors had suggested (e.g. free phone in exchange for ads).

Will "great hardware + great software + grand ambitions = bad customer experience" result in the death knell of the Google phone? The verdict is still out. Undoubtedly, the folks at Google will do some quick fixes on the customer service front before their release for Verizon. But the reality hasn’t matched the hype so far, and Apple has some big news planned this week.