Video of My TEDx NASA Speech

For those of you who asked, here is the video of my six minute speech at the TEDx NASA conference. Click the bottom right button on the video player to watch in full screen. Enjoy.

Click here to watch the video on YouTube

Hand Dryer or Paper Towels / Collaboration or Competition

At the Open Innovation Summit last week, I had a lively conversation with a few individuals. The debate was about which model of open innovation is most effective – competitive or collaborative.

Kevin Boudreau and Karim Lakhani wrote an excellent article earlier this year in the MIT Sloane Management Review on this very topic. They looked at the merits of each form of open innovation. I encourage you to read the article as it addresses factors like intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation.

InnoCentive uses both forms of open innovation in different environments.

Their “marketplace” model is competitive. That is, when posting challenges to their network of 185,000 experts, the solvers cannot see any of the other solutions. One reason for using this model is that the intellectual property needs to be protected.

This is in contrast to InnoCentive’s @Work product which is used to broadcast challenges internally to employees. With this product, solutions are provided in a collaborative fashion where solvers can see all responses. Given that only employees are participating, intellectual property issues are not as critical.

The competition/collaboration debate reminds me of the Miller Lite commercials – “Tastes Great…Less Filling.”

It also reminds me of the hand dryer versus paper towel debate (in terms of efficacy – not impact on the environment, which is a different debate).

After much experimentation, I have the long awaited answer: Use paper towels first followed by the hand dryer. The paper towel gets off most of the water so that the hand dryer can quickly evaporate the remaining liquid. The best solution for drying your hands is not one approach, but a combination of the two… in the right order.

I believe that the answer is the same for the competition versus the collaboration debate. It is not an either/or proposition.

From my experience, you start with competition followed by collaboration. Here’s why….

If you start with collaboration, you end up with “group think” very quickly. That is, as soon as the first idea is thrown out, it tends to influence the thinking of the other contributors. This narrows the set of ideas that are typically generated. Therefore, if you start with a competition, you get the broadest set of ideas possible.

Then, after selecting the winners of the competition, you take the best ideas and allow a collaborative community to flesh them out. This gives you get a much richer solution in the end.

This approach models the most effective way of running brainstorming sessions. It works best when you first have each person independently write down their own creative ideas. Only after everyone generates their own list does the group come together. Then they share ideas, select the best ones, and expand upon those best ideas collaboratively. Individual thought followed by group throught. Competition followed by collaboration.

IMHO, the same is holds true for open innovation.

Of course there are a variety of factors that may “require” the use of one approach over the other (e.g., intellectual property protection), but there are even ways to address that. But more on that in another blog post.

P.S. I’m serious about using paper towels first followed by the hand dryer…
P.P.S. If you are not aware, I am InnoCentive’s Chief Innovation Evangelist.
P.P.P.S. It was pointed out that I use the word “ideas” in this post.  To be clear, when I say ideas I am referring to solutions to the given challenge.  I am a big believer that idea-driven innovation (i.e., give me your best idea) tends to lead to sub-optimal solutions.  I am an advocate of challenge-driven innovation (i.e., give me your best ideas that can solve this specific problem).  Although the difference may appear to be subtle, in reality the difference is significant.

Toothpaste Innovations

I never really thought much about toothpaste.  But at the last two innovation conferences where I spoke, toothpaste was one of the hot topics.

At the FT Innovate conference in London, Unilever discussed their “Signal White Now” (and other brands) toothpaste.  Instead of using harsh bleaches and abrasives, they borrowed an optical-effect technology from their laundry team.  This toothpaste uses a blue pigment to make yellow teeth instantly appear whiter.  This same ingredient is used to make white clothes look even whiter.

At the Open Innovation Summit in Orlando, GSK discussed how their “Aquafresh iso-active” toothpaste borrowed an idea from a GSK cleaning product which acts like Edge shaving cream (she used that example since most people in the room would understand it).  The toothpaste comes out like a gel, but foams in the mouth, much like the shaving cream.  This formulation, according to the can I was given, removes 25% more bacteria than regular toothpaste – or 3x more according to the picture left.

This got me thinking.  If toothpaste manufacturers can get ideas from shaving cream and laundry detergent, where else could they get ideas?  Within 5 minutes, I thought up a few ideas of how to gain inspiration from other products:

1. Pop Rocks:  As a kid, I loved how Pop Rocks, the carbonated candy, exploded in your mouth.  What if you added Pop Rock-like crystals to toothpaste?  Not only would the toothpaste foam, it would fizz and explode.  Maybe this would blast the plaque off your teeth.  Of course, it might blast off your teeth like Pop Rocks reputedly did a few times.
2. Shampoo: Shampoos are infused with vitamins and minerals to give your hair bounce and shine.  What if you infused toothpaste with these ingredients? Or maybe you could add some homeopathic remedies – for those who believe in these alternative “medicines.”  Sublingual administration (under the tongue) is a common and effective way of delivering drugs directly into the bloodstream.
3. Conditioner: We use shampoo to clean and conditioner to protect.  Maybe they can create a tooth conditioner; a special toothpaste that you use after your regular toothpaste.  It could coat your teeth to prevent staining, bad breath, or split ends.  Even better, they could borrow the “technology” used by shampoos like “Pearl” that combine shampoo and conditioner into one formulation.
4. Moisturizers: Several moisturizers have an AM and a PM formulation.  One is used in the morning and the other at night before you go to sleep.  The AM formula of toothpaste could be infused with caffeine that would be absorbed into the bloodstream sublingually (see idea #2 above).  And the PM formulation could be infused with melatonin to help you sleep better at night.
5. Weight Loss Products:  I’m not sure how this would work, but what if you could create a toothpaste that somehow made certain foods taste bad?  This might cause you to reduce the amount of food you eat.  Or maybe there is another way to make toothpaste a weight loss product.  OK, this one is a stretch, but there might be a kernel of an idea there!

In a breakout at the Open Innovation Summit, an innovation leader from Johnson & Johnson, when asked to name the most important word for their business right now, answered “Convergence.”  By this, he meant the sharing of ideas across business units and brands.

Ideas can indeed come from anywhere.  And quite often, the best ideas will come from inside your own organization- just from a different product, function, division, or brand.  Where will your next big idea come from?

If you want to learn how to tap into the collective wisdom of your organization, look into InnoCentive’s @Work product.  This collaboration tool helps you post challenges to anyone inside your organization.  And if you don’t get the answer you like internally, you can “flip a switch” and post your challenge externally to their 185,000 solvers.

If you have other toothpaste innovation ideas, I would love for you to post them as comments!

P.S. In addition to the comments below, look at the solutions provided on the InnoCentive blog.  There are some great ideas there!

Shooting for Mars May Help Us on Earth

At the TEDx NASA conference, I had some amazing conversations with people in the “green room” while preparing to take the stage.

One individual had spent his entire career with NASA focused on travel to Mars.  This was his life’s passion.  But now that he has moved out of the space program into the private sector, he wonders if the money spent on space travel should be re-focused.  He wonders if we should spend the money fixing problems here on earth.

We had a lively debate.  One thing I suggested was that shooting for Mars MIGHT be the way to fix some of our issues here on earth.

From my experience, when trying to solve problems, we attempt to move from point A (where we are today) to point B (where we want to go).  But often we fall short and end up at A’ (as depicted in the graphic on the left).

However, if we shoot for point C, even if we fall short, we might just hit point B.

You can debate the value of flying to the moon or looking for life on Mars.  But it is hard to debate the incredible technologies that have been developed as part of the space program and how they are integrated into every day life.

There is a great webpage that lists a number of these spin-offs.  One example spin-off from the Hubble telescope is the use of its Charge Coupled Device (CCD) chips for digital imaging breast biopsies. According to the website – “The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently than other existing technologies. The CCD chips are so advanced that they can detect the minute differences between a malignant or benign tumor without the need for a surgical biopsy. This saves the patient weeks of recovery time and the cost for this procedure is hundreds of dollars vs. thousands for a surgical biopsy. With over 500,000 women needing biopsies a year the economic benefit, per year, is tremendous and it greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.”

The site continues to make a compelling case for why space program investments are good investments.

Here’s the question for you and your innovation efforts…

How often do you shoot for “B” and miss the mark?  What if you shot for “C,” fell short and hit “B” instead?

Instead of just going for what seems possible, shoot for the seemingly impossible.  Try wild and crazy ideas.

I discussed the general concept of making the impossible possible in an entry called “The Magic of Innovation.”  Be sure to check it out.

Innovation @ TEDx NASA

This past Friday I had 6 minutes to share a message about innovation with the world at TEDx NASA.  It was a fantastic event with 29 speakers, authors, musicians, aerospace engineers, a neuroscientist and more.  1,700 people were in attendance and it is reported that nearly 100,000 people watched via video streaming on the internet.

Given that my typical speech is 45 minutes long, preparing a 6 minute presentation was a bit of a challenge and required me to script it out to make sure I did not go over my allotted time.  Below is what I prepared.  Within the next two weeks, I will be able to share the actual video footage – where I am sure I said something completely different.

TITLE: SOMETIMES EVEN ROCKET SCIENCE ISN’T ROCKET SCIENCE

It’s not rocket science.

We hear people use that expression to describe something that’s not that complex. And although I would never suggest that aerospace challenges are simple, sometimes, even rocket science isn’t rocket science. What I mean by that is sometimes the most creative solutions to aerospace challenges can be found outside the realm of rocket science.

The issue is, you are experts. And your expertise might be the very thing that is preventing you from finding the most creative solutions.

Let me explain why with a simple example.

Think about a time when you lost your keys. After searching everywhere, upon finding them, what did you inevitably say to yourself? “Can you believe it? They were in the last place I looked!” Well of course, who finds something and continues to look for it?

The same thing is true when looking for a solution to a problem. Once your brain finds a solution, it stops looking. And the greater the level of your expertise, the quicker you find a solution. Unfortunately, your idea may not be new, innovative, or the best solution.

The key is to look outside your domain of expertise and to assume that someone else has already solved your problem. Because the odds are, someone HAS solved your problem. So, if you are working on an aerospace challenge, the solution may in fact not be rocket science.

Let me give you a few simple examples.

A high margin item for office supply companies is selling refilled toner cartridges. The challenge is however, very few customers return the used cartridge. During a brainstorming session designed to find creative solutions to this dilemma, I asked the question, “Who else has solved this problem? Who sends you something and is guaranteed that you will send it back?” The first response was the IRS. But the next response was NetFlix. They send you a DVD. You can keep it as long as you want. When you are done you return it and get another one. We investigated and implemented a NetFlix style subscription model for toner cartridges. This worked out great for the company, because they had a 100% return rate on empty cartridges. And customers love it because they never run out of toner and they get great discounts.

It’s not rocket science. Someone else solved this problem.

Or consider engineers who have been searching for better ways to locate and seal cracks in gas pipelines. This is a pressing issue for the industry. Then, one day, while a Scottish engineer was working on this issue, he got a paper cut. Unlike most people who would be annoyed, he was thrilled. What he realized is that his finger is like a cracked gas pipeline. By making a connection between capillaries and a pipeline, he was able to quickly develop an inert coagulation ingredient that would seals these cracks.

The solution wasn’t rocket science. Someone else, in this case the human body, had already solved this problem.

Or consider a snack food manufacturer that wanted to find a way of reducing the amount of fat in their potato chips. The best solution wasn’t found in their laboratory. In fact, the solution wasn’t found in any laboratory. The person who discovered the best solution had no experience with food production. He was a musician. He knew that sound vibrations travel through solid objects and that if an object is light enough it, too, will vibrate. The solution was to place speakers above the conveyor belt and use loud music to literally shake the fat out of chips.

Clearly, this was not rocket science.

Quite often the most creative solutions arise when you assume that someone else has already found a solution. When you look outside your domain of expertise.

Or, as Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc, once said, “Creativity is just having enough dots to connect… connect experiences and synthesize new things. The reason creative people are able to do that is that they’ve had more experiences or have thought more about their experiences than other people.”

When you become masterful at connecting dots you find new and creative solutions.

That’s the wonderful thing about this conference. They could have put 20 aerospace engineers on the stage. But instead they brought in artists, musicians, authors and neuroscientists. This is a chance for you to connect the dots. To learn from unrelated disciplines. If you have 100 aerospace engineers working on a challenge, the value of adding the 101st would be incremental. But adding a biologist, a neurologist, a nano-technologist, or a musician, may lead to a breakthrough.

[at this point I show a picture and tell a funny story…but you’ll have to wait for the video for that]

It is about making connections. It is about connecting the dots. It is about looking outside of your domain of expertise.

You are all experts. And you are admired for your deep understanding of complex technical issues. Having said that, sometimes, the key to creative thinking is to recognize the best solutions aren’t always rocket science.

« Previous Page — Next Page »