Values Sensitive Innovation

(cc) Some rights reserved. 2011 Peter Jones

PAIN CONSULT

Concept design workshop

Values Sensitive Innovation

Strategic interventions in value conflicts

Peter JonesStrategic Foresight & Innovation


Systemic effects of values in innovation• Values in product & service design• Process & Practices• Organizational values & innovation

Identifying values / conflicts as root cause drivers• We tend to observe effects – outcomes of choices• Values as form of tacit knowledge “know how & why”• Persistent, slow change cycles

KEY ISSUES


Where do values tensions /conflicts show up in everyday

products?


Apple’s iTunes Store


Exodus “Gay Cure” App


Case 2

WebMD

• What do younotice here?• What is the mostsalient message?• What values areprioritized?• How could caringvalues be betterpresented?


How do values actually show up?

Who says there’s a conflict?

Can we always predict a conflict?


Where & how have youexperienced a values conflictin a product or service?

(Write down, then share in pairs for 2 min each.)


CASES IN POINT


• Significant invention with the capacity fortransformation.• Strategic innovation sustains business strategy

through significant invention, designing new orbreakthrough products to fulfill strategic intent.• And user intent.

• Strategic innovations can be internal too.

DEFINE INNOVATION


ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES CHANGE WITH SUCCESS

Growth over time

VALUES

STRATEGY

Start-Up Leader

Explore – “Innovate orDie”

Expand - Growth

Exploit – CustomerIntimacy

• Independence• Innovation• High Risk – Reward• Vision

• Customer Satisfaction• Relationships• Stability

• Focus or Direction• Excellence• Routine

Jones, P.H. (2002). When successful products prevent strategic innovation. DMR.


“One of the bittersweet rewards of success is, in fact,that as companies become large, they literally lose thecapability to enter small emerging markets. Theirdisability is not because of a change in the resourceswithin the companies — their resources typically arevast. Rather, it is because their values change.”

Clayton Christensen (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma.

THE PARADOX


What’s a current example of acompany fitting this pattern?


IS GOOGLE THE NEW MICROSOFT?

Growth over time

VALUES

STRATEGY

Start-Up Leader

Explore – “Innovateor Die”

Expand - Growth

Exploit – Customer Intimacy

2001 - Universal Search• Adwords• 20% project time

2011• Killing off apps• And Labs• Products?

2007 - Dozens of apps• Google Labs• Google.org• Acquisitions

Jones, P.H. (2002). When successful products prevent strategic innovation. DMR.

Page: All Google products fit 3categories:• Search ads and ad products.• Products Acquisitions with high

consumer success: YouTube,Android, Chrome.

• New products like Google+ &“Offers” (Copying winners)


Values Conflicts in Innovation Management Process

Process Type Official process Process in use (example)

OrganizationalManagement

Targeted Selection hiringprocess involving multiplefunctions to develop criteria& interview.

Hiring decisions made from informalinterviews and manager gut feel.

Market Research Third-party product &usability research

Sales presentations to importantcustomers

Product Lifecycle Cooper’s Stage-Gate process Project oversight, shoot-from-hip atexecutive committee meetings

Product Management Requirements Management Product management by personalfeature lists

Project Management Work Breakdown Structure Using Microsoft Project templatesfor project

Product Design ProductDevelopment

Design management process Dictated by product manager


Values Conflicts - WHY

Level of Activity Management Processes Process Values

Organizational Strategic Planning

Marketing, Market Research

Product Management

Project Portfolio Management

Economic effectiveness

Brand integrity

Return on project investment

Customer satisfaction

Project Product Lifecycle Management

Project Management

Efficiency

Execution

Project metrics as values:

(Scope, Schedule, Budget)

Design Established design process

Design community practices

Local expert practices

Design excellence

End user satisfaction

Effectiveness and usability

Professional values


Values Conflicts in InnovationManagement Process

Values conflict points in a product/service design lifecycle

Process Stage Points of Values Conflict & Resolution

RequirementsDefinition

Intent of requirements - customer, user, utility or profit, etc.Social power of product owner - decision-making style, etc.Requirements process factors: Access to users, openness to critique orchange, prototype flexibility, feedback continuity.Priority differences among team members.

ConceptualDesign

Definition of product, interpretation of requirementsDeveloper values can influence initial design.Values of customer - considered in scope?Representation of requirements priorities.

Detailed Design Interpretation differences between product mgr and designers.Representation of functions in the user interface.Developer “willingness” to design for difficult requirements.

Development Development management backing priorities of product.Designed deviations from conceptual design.User feedback messages and user interface decisions.

Testing Determination of test cases and success criteria.Process - ability to test with user/customer representatives.

Delivery Approach toward alpha/beta testing.Approach toward cataloging customer feedback in process.Descriptions of product/system & their relationship to release.Marketing descriptions and propositions.



WHAT’S THE (WICKED) PROBLEM?

• Our organizations need help. We live with/ in the unlivable.In many firms, the values of efficiency, hierarchy, central control havereached unsustainable extremes.

• Leaders attempt change (transformation), but usually instrumental.Zuboff, 1998 “Mommy & Daddy are not at home.”

• Business research & “design thinking” unhelpful to changeMost of this is short term, goal-oriented, not socially responsive

• Continue to see inability to learn as org culturesThe new is valorized (managers, processes)


WHAT’S (AT LEAST ONE) “ANSWER?”

Socializing…

an organic process that diffuses artifacts &activities throughout an organization, creating aweb of connections that supports sustainableorganizational practices.

See also: Lateral, horizontal, evangelizing


Strategy, Vision: Direction

Processes:Org routines in production

Practices:How things are done, where innovationsemerge. Some grow into processes.

Mintzberg “The Structuring of Organizations”

FOR EVOLVING PRACTICESORGANIZATION AS PLATFORM

(Processes are what the firm recognizes)


A CASE STUDY• Large ($2B) retail systems provider• Spent >5 years developing “best practices”• Planned a “revolutionary” product (with customers & tests)

• Tech evolved, & design changed over 5 yrs• Development team sequestered - (to “innovate”)

Kept the project secret from rest of the company - until ready to release

• Corporate Persona100+ year old Fortune 500, Product lines, Traditional hierarchyInternally competitive, Argyris “Model I” org

The governing Values of Model I are:

Achieve the purpose as the actor defines itWin, do not loseSuppress negative feelingsEmphasize rationality

Primary Strategies are:Control environment and task unilaterallyProtect self and others unilaterally


PROCESSES INSTITUTIONALIZED

• Original UX process had failed• UX goals, deliverables, feedback “pre-framed”

By product & marketing managementNo latitude to share fuzzy, emergent findings from field

• Repeatable, measurable, defined routines• Process view assumes portable “plug & play,” (IBM RUP)• Consistent training of all using process• Lines of authority & expertise form (quickly)• Imported processes rarely sustainable• And processes work against knowledge & growth.


AFTER THIS FAILED IN MARKET …• Company reorganized UX as a small team• With a small budget – Consultant + 2 staff

To develop prototypes & practices for interim product

• “Best practices” replaced by actual user feedback• Developed new practices & shared results openly

(Model II, double-loop, mental models)• Structuration of new practices• Hopeful speculation: As socialization worked here, it

may work in any Model I firm.


SW Dev

ProductMarketing

DesignManagement

Consultant

1. No UX competency.Initial team formed for project.

SW Dev

ProductMarketing

2. Project connects team across departments.

SW Dev

ProductMarketing

3. Project produces artifacts, starts sharingresources laterally to other projects.

4. Demand increases: Skill building,recruiting, & management follows.

Project A

Project B

Project C

Project A

Project AUX Group

text

DesignManagement

Consultant

DesignManagement

Consultant

SOCIALIZATION LIFECYCLE


PRACTICES IN A PROCESS WORLD

• Practice development is often disrupted by well-meaningintervention of management

Imposing best practices & “repeatable processes.”

• New processes institutionalized by management are “brittle,”compete for resources & standing

• Direct learning & competency development at the front linesbecome strategic competencies that grow the firm andsustain its competitive position. (Penrose resource theory of firm)


PRACTICES SOCIALIZED

• Build an organic demand & interest in the (UX) practice.Consult laterally to other projects as capacity builds.

• Collaborate with managers and other roles to integratepractice into business processes.This ensures takeup by meeting common needs across lines / processes

• Provide awareness sessions, discussion, & education asneeded to fit resources to the process.

Assessment and renewal, staffing, building competency.


Participation enacted in organization differently over time

For rare, knowledge-based skillsets such as UX, design, research, or internal startupsLeverages available resources with expert support (to plan, generate prototypes, etc.)Projects serves as autonomous testbeds, allowing refinement of practice until “sharing readiness”

“IMPROV DESIGN” IN THE ORG LAB



CONCLUSIONS

• Socialization a macro-method for participatoryorganizational practice design : Values shiftingValues shifts occur from resilient cultural changes, trust, over time

• Leverages weak ties & generates strong demandamong resources in an org network.

Develop “functionally similar” processes (e.g. UX) from unique, tailored knowledge

• Follows a resource-based view of strategy:A firm grows from its unique competencies, not copyable processes.Competitive base formed from unique use of knowledge