Ken Miller Group

Insight for Innovation: Falling Through the Cracks?

In the world of product and package innovation, cross-functional project teams are great for pulling functional experts together and integrating work processes.  But even the tightest of teams often can’t prevent critical work output from slipping through the cracks as they move from stage to stage.  So, key consumer insights can be lost in devising strategy, and mission-critical strategies can go unfulfilled in concept development.   Fresh consumer insights are precious.  When they are lost, projects don’t have a chance.  How does this happen on a project team that is seemingly humming on all cylinders?

• Under intense time pressure, teams can sometimes get too wrapped up in moving through the process steps.  When it’s all about meeting deadlines, content can be neglected or watered down in favor of reaching agreement and moving forward.
• Innovation process tools often don’t bridge stages properly, providing no structured mechanisms for making sure that key outputs find a home and are properly leveraged.  Gaping seams in the process are magnified by functional distinctions, leaving outputs hard to digest and incorporate in following stages.  As a derivative of above, insights and strategies can be interpreted differently by team members, and subtle meaning can be lost in hand-offs.
• It can be difficult to build consensus among team members on all fronts:  What are we really solving for?  Which insights are most critical?  What criteria do we use to evaluate concepts?  How do we set priorities among strategies for functional and perceptual utility?  Inevitable compromise can mean wishy-washy output that pushes a project off course.
• Early-stage concepts try to deliver on all requirements when they should be exploring the best ways to deliver on individual, highly-valued attributes.  Then, many are trashed when they are determined to be infeasible.  The shame of this is that these preliminary ideas may have been the hiding places for key insights that were not properly executed in the concept.  When the concept is discarded, so is the place-holder for valuable intelligence.

What’s the answer to bridging the gaps in innovation?  You can probably guess by reading between the lines above.  But to bottom-line it:  Consider one seamless process to drive work stages across functional divides.  Integrated research, analytical and communications tools can work together to help focus the team on what matters at each stage.  They can articulate insights and strategies in clear fashion to build consensus without diluting or distorting output.  And they can drive concept development to best solve for key consumer requirements.

So don’t let the insidious flaws of teams and processes allow your next innovation project to fall through the cracks.  Build strong bridges with the right tools.

Innovation Risk: An Obsolete Cartoon Tells the Story

I created this cartoon almost 10 years ago.  Back then, companies were feeling their way around innovation, but still rather two-faced about their commitment to the discipline.  Management would openly acknowledge that innovation programs could fail without repercussion for the team and its members.  Publicly, leadership would pronounce that managing a portfolio of innovation programs might yield one or two winners, and the failures were of value for the learning acquired.  No harm done, no careers lost.

But they didn’t behave that way.  Years ago, product innovation groups played host to individuals who often didn’t “fit” in the mainstream, more respected product management career path.  The strongest managers steered clear of innovation work, thinking of it as an academic exercise focused on phase gates and forwarding innovation “science”.  As well, they feared being marginalized or out of the action in visibility and business impact.  Innovation teams toiled in anonymity, infrequently sharing progress, less frequently touting good news and happy to stay below the corporate radar.  Or at best, they would fight to be heard at every staff and budget meeting.  No one knew what was going on down there in the skunk works.  And worse, few cared.

So management continued to outwardly profess that failure was welcome as a learning experience, and the organization was slowly improving the odds of success.  But the culture of selecting talent and limiting awareness made for a political climate that continued to disproportionately reward core business managers who are generating revenue today at the expense of those who were, in all actuality, trusted with the future.  Unexpectedly, those who chose a job in innovation often found themselves with plenty of psychic rewards,  and more comfortable in a work environment where the creative, strategic and intellectual aspects of strategy, research, design and testing suited them better than the high-visibility, daily trial-by-fire of product management.

This era is finally over–I think.  And this cartoon is thankfully obsolete–perhaps.  So much has changed, though slowly.  A degree of innovation process discipline generated a body of learning over time that began to bear fruit with more frequent success.  Academic irrelevance gave way to practical and proven tools.  These successes and the visibility they generated began to draw interest from those who wouldn’t consider the innovation path before.  Management realized that squeezing blood from the monolithic brand stone was becoming more expensive and less impactful.  Brand management and innovation got to know one another.  And innovation was redefined from swinging for the fences every time to looking for singles and doubles that didn’t disenfranchise consumers and customers, and reduced execution risk for the organization.

It all added up to newfound success in the marketplace.  Good people are now rewarded for taking a previously “risky” career path, and have realized that the skills collected are worth at least as much in the job marketplace as those acquired by sticking to brand management.  Knowing how to deal with uncertainty, solve problems and drive growth have become desirable attributes, and dare I say—cool.  And as companies began to show less loyalty to their people overall, these skill- and character-building jobs have become sought after in a world where the best employees look to take back control of their careers.

So what might this cartoon look like today?  Maybe there’s no longer a need to make a statement about the culture surrounding innovation at all.   But I doubt that’s yet the case.  I have a few ideas, but how about you tell me.  And, if you think this cartoon still speaks the truth, I’d sure like to hear about that, too.

On the Same Page? Building Team Consensus in NPD

I apologize in advance if this new cartoon offends anyone.  But I post it here to make a point about building team consensus around proposed innovation solutions.  That is:  It’s hard.

Reaching concurrence on direction taken in new product and package development is a key driver of project success.  That’s because solutions that are imposed on team members in dissent face challenges that erode collaboration and impede implementation.  Dissenters feel they aren’t being heard, or their opinions don’t count.  Or that the chosen solution poses execution risk for them.

I’ve observed that there are a handful of issues that can pull teams apart, and they are typically in place long before a key decision point.  What are these insidious forces?  And what compensating measures can defeat them, and hold teams together to ensure consensus when it’s needed?  The chart below is my effort to put them on the table.

No, I’m no Industrial Psychologist (though I came close early on).  But after years of study and work with client teams in all kinds of companies, these seem to be the make-or-break issues for collaboration.  Your take on it is welcome.

Attribute-Oriented Innovation: Preference Over Process

And, of course, a new KMG cartoon!

Clients tell me that their typical innovation process starts with need identification to drive new concepts.  Likely, these early stage concepts mix and match features in an attempt to meet all requirements in various ways.  Features overlap across concepts, and variables such as form and utility aren’t standardized.  So, as the next step in the process, consumer feedback is flawed, if not invalid.  I call this the “Create and Evaluate” approach.

Sure, there’s the chance that one concept will “nail it”, but it can’t possibly be optimized.  And asking consumers to pick their favorite of the bunch is an exercise in relative, not absolute performance–if it is not simply validating the team’s preconceptions.  Even if we ask consumers why they prefer one concept over another, we can’t really know what independent characteristics drive preference and value in this process.  We can choose an attractive concept, but we can’t optimize a solution.

I’ve created an approach to the design process that I call  Attribute-Oriented Innovation.  It basically turns the process outlined above inside-out.  It allows us to use research to clearly identify the most desired attributes and then build the optimized concept.  But first, what’s an attribute?  Simply put, it is a physical characteristic–either functional, perceptual or emotional in impact–that has utility for consumers.  How does AOI work?

• Early occasion-based or need-state-driven research is used to identify the functional, perceptual and emotional gaps that present opportunities for design.  These key insights drive an explicit design strategy.
• An early design exploration then  surfaces a wide range of product or package attributes that are conceived as independent “concepts”.   But they are not concepts in the traditional sense.  They are the building blocks.
• These attribute building blocks are then assembled in a set of rational concepts that can be effectively screened with consumers.  Classic research principles govern how attributes are arrayed and variables are held constant.
• Concept screening tools (see Consumer Lab) identify the strongest set of attributes, their preferred executions and a set of preliminary “optimized” product or package configurations.
• Only then can true concept generation and development take place.  The result is a tight range of fully integrated and optimized concepts that incorporate the most desired attributes.
• Final concept evaluation identifies the best execution for development.

The point:  AOI ensures that concepts deliver on the most valued requirements in discrete ways.  So they are easy for the team to evaluate, match to criteria and screen with consumers.  And the chosen solution is sure to not only perform as it should, but do it in the best possible way.  And that’s how it wins over the standard “Create and Evaluate” paradigm.

Fresh KMG Cartoon! VOC – When to Stop Listening

I know…this would never happen at your company.  But it could–if you let it.

Consumers are eager to tell you all the ways they struggle with your package, and what new features would compel them to buy and cement their loyalty forever.  They will blackmail you with expectations for over-the-top functionality that will make the world safe again for on-the-go snacking.  Or bathroom cleaning.  Or…

So how do you reconcile consumer “requirements” with the real-life constraints you live with in R&D?  Here are some questions to ask yourself when faced with numerous stated consumer expectations you can’t possibly fulfill.

• Forget about features.  What are the perceptual and functional attributes consumers care about most?  Can you define and rank them?  It’s not enough to say “maintain freshness” is a critical attribute.  How should you execute on that?  Should you do so at all given the usage dynamics of the product?  Perhaps perceptual cues that signal freshness would do the job, given that true freshness is likely sufficient.
• What’s the key consumer promise your product makes?  What’s the role of packaging in delivering it?  Are there gaps?  If your product is all about the foaming action that lifts dirt, what can the package do better to bring that to life, both perceptually and functionally?  The point is to look beyond the utility of packaging alone, and consider the integrated, singular product/package promise consumers will understand and value.  Ignore consumer “requirements” that don’t support that promise unless your package is leaving some critical, category-standard utility on the table.
• What incremental utility will your consumer ultimately pay for?  This is the age-old question without many good answers.  But with the right approach, it’s one reasonable way to decode what’s mission critical and what’s just dip on the chip.  How might you approach this?  I use some “relative value” and “asset allocation” tools that don’t ask consumers to pick an absolute price, and can help tremendously.  Feel free to ask me about them.
• Are you taking consumer requirements too literally?  Just because consumers say they need a better grip on your drink bottle doesn’t mean they should get one.  Assuming this attribute is high-ranking, there are various ways to deliver on it without adding tangible gripping features.  Maybe its about stability.  Or spilling.  Or proportion.  Or more likely, as suggested above, your consumer is laundry-listing “expectations” since you asked them, and she doesn’t really care.

As we all know, the voice of the customer can be loud and relentless, if not grating at times.  Your job is to bring a rational, thoughtful and analytical perspective to their demands.  And maybe even some ear plugs.

New Original Cartoon: Mining for Fresh Consumer Insights

Here, I’m trying to suggest that it’s easy to gather learning from research, but it’s really tough to unearth game-changing, unrecognized and leverageable insight.  Read more below:

Is it all about the tools?  Partly, in the same way that auto racing is about the car.  I prefer to say that surfacing breakthrough insights is about both Tools and Talent.  And as you may know, it’s hard to find them both under one roof.

Tools: Here, I don’t mean making choices between ethnography and the focus group.  I mean the uniquely effective take on research methods that exposes true underlying need states.  Or perhaps a concept screening technique that asks consumers to focus on desired attributes rather than just voting for their favorite idea. Or even the kind of consumer interaction that eliminates group think and gets at real emotional underpinnings.  Choosing the method is easy.  Perfecting a technique is what separates standard-issue data gathering from surfacing deep, valid and instructive insights.

Talent: Execution is everything.  But by that I don’t mean just nailing the logistics. I’m referring to a whole host of skills that enable the connection among observations, that sees something unspoken and pivotal in an activity, and can probe an interaction to extract unexpected value.  How?  Can’t be taught.  It’s a skills recipe that includes:

• Empathy to win trust
• Analytical abilities to group and extrapolate observations
• Strategic thinking that can focus on solving for key objectives
• Organization skills that can present findings in a digestible and vivid way
• Communications skills that can tell a story and build consensus.

Where do you find both the Talent and the Tools that can change the rules in your category?  Go deep…

If you enjoyed this cartoon, let me know and I can send you others (both past and upcoming) on a range of innovation topics.  Or, you can click on the Original Cartoons link in this blog.

Another Original Cartoon! Ideation Frustration

Yes, another cartoon.  Kindly indulge me.  This one pokes fun at the frustration some teams face with their internal brainstorming efforts.  Often, teams struggle to manage their own creative energy, and to generate output that is focused, on-strategy and actionable.

Here’s why I think ideation activities can fail:

• Teams have an abundance of creative talent, but they may not have the tools to organize and focus it.
• Consumer insights aren’t properly framed up to inspire and guide brainstorming.
• Teams remain committed to the edict that “there are no bad ideas”.  See a previous post on this fallacy.
• There’s no consensus on what a good idea is, or a coherent process for evaluating them.
• Too much time is spent generating ideas, and not nearly enough on screening, integrating and recasting them.

But I think the biggest barrier is a more fundamental one.  Teams typically assume that the appropriate outcome of an ideation session is a small set of fully-fashioned, cohesive concepts that perform some combination of desired utility.  This may sound right, but in cases where the team is charged with inventing the truly new, it’s asking too much to walk out of the room with compelling, optimized solutions.

Instead, what if your ideation sessions focused on surfacing the best ways to deliver on a range of desired utilities?  The goal should be to originate well-defined feature or attribute sets that deliver on a strong consumer promise.  These may look like concepts–in pictures and/or words–but they represent the “what” rather than the “how” of typical concepts that try to do everything, but do nothing particularly well.

Here’s an example.  In my case study on crayon packaging, research showed that kids are enthralled by an initial spectacular array of color upon opening the package, but then quickly dig in to find their favorite colors.  I’ll bet there are a hundred ways in which a crayon package concept could present an array of color to visually inspire and excite kids.  Why not focus on that in isolation for a while?  And, there are another hundred ways that a package could assist kids in storing and finding their favorite colors.  Show me some!

Then, the evaluation process becomes one of assessing which attributes do the best job of delivering on the recognized needs.  The next step is to integrate the most compelling attributes into cohesive concepts.  So more time is spent building, testing and integrating ideas instead of spilling out scads of concepts on the odd chance that one will do it all, and do it right.

I call this Attribute-Oriented Innovation (AOI).  It’s an approach I devised as another way to look at ideation, concept development and screening.  It’s not always the right way to go, but when it is, it works.  Ask me about Precision Ideation–my way to incorporate AOI in ideation sessions that will:

• Translate consumer insights into inspiring and actionable drivers of innovation.
• Articulate compelling features and attributes brought to life real-time in words and pictures.
• Focus creative energy to build the most promising early-stage concepts, with clear direction for development.

You can read more about Precision Ideation under the Tools section of this site.  And, you can see more cartoons right here, too!

Product Communications: Promise Before Positioning?

Along with my work in design strategy and research, I’m occasionally asked to work on new product positioning and communications. Sometimes a new product is not performing to expectations, or there’s evidence that consumers are not receiving key messages or using a product as intended. Consumers just aren’t “getting it”.

I’ve found that there are often two possible reasons why a great product can fall on deaf ears:

1.  The strategic process by which communications are developed is faulty, and messages   become weak and muddled.

2.  Language used to translate positioning intent into communications is misleading, not relevant or just boring.

Here, I’d like to address the first issue, as there’s more to chew on and it’s closer to my own process-driven heart. Sad, I know.

As you might expect, each consumer products marketer has their own unique definitions for process deliverables such as “concept”, “positioning”, “reason-to-believe” and “claim”. And their own order in developing them. But the reason for doing so should always be the same: To find a role in the marketplace for the product and a way of talking to consumers about it that will drive communications across channels.

Often, I find that marketers want to jump right from a concept statement to formulating a positioning. But many times, because both are often phrased in consumer-friendly language, they can sound the same. I could argue that a positioning statement may be worth devising, but is not the most vital link in the communications strategy chain. Allow me to introduce the idea of a Consumer Promise. More on that later.

I’d like to propose a set of terms and definitions, as well as a process for using them that seems to work. In order of investigation:

CONCEPT: The concept defines the key consumer problem/insight/opportunity, and then proposes a product-driven solution. It’s supported by product features and attributes. It’s written for internal use, not in consumer lingo. Its role is to state the what of the product and achieve a common understanding among team members as to what the product delivers. Then, each function can do its job. From formulation development to package design, a clear concept is key.

TERRITORY: Defined as the “room to roam” for the product. It addresses the relationship between the product and other in-house brands, as well as competitive brands and substitutes. It specifies a usage occasion and a consumer target—demographically or psychographically. In essence, it finds a place in the category for the new product. So, its role is to define the where of the product.

CONSUMER PROMISE: This might be a new idea for some, but it’s the lynchpin of the process—perhaps the critical driver of a successful communications strategy. And the element most often neglected. The Consumer Promise translates the concept into a compelling, persuasive and relevant argument for consumers. It starts with a problem statement in language a consumer might use. It then proposes a solution in product terms that addresses purpose, occasion, frequency, and most important, outcome. Then, followed by a single, all-encompassing REASON-TO-BUY, the Consumer Promise offers the why of the product. Why should I believe that it works? Why should I buy it? The RTB supports the Consumer Promise solution by convincing the consumer that the product performs as it says it does.

One concept can and should spawn several potential Consumer Promise statements. Each might characterize a given consumer problem in different ways, or direct itself at distinct insights. As well, the proposed solutions might differ somewhat. But the RTB will remain the same. That’s why the product works. It’s the foundation for performance credibility and the Claims to come. The role of the Consumer Promise is to identify with the consumer. It’s the first time the consumer can react to your offering (or promise, really) and you can best get a fix on how to talk about it. There are ways to test alternative Consumer Promises, but we won’t go there now. Feel free to ask me.

CLAIMS: These are tricky, because they can sound a lot like RTBs or benefits if you’re not careful. But they’re not. Claims are the how of the product offering. How does the product deliver on the RTB? How does it deliver on the Promise?  There are typically multiple Claims statements, each providing a performance characteristic in credible fashion. Claims may demonstrate how the product is proven to work. Or the impact or outcome the consumer can expect. The key is credibility and tangible performance. The role of Claims are to support various communications channels with flexible language templates that can be tailored to the needs of packaging, advertising and other media.

POSITIONING: Why did I leave this to last? Because it’s a by-product of the above real work, and serves little communications purpose. That’s right…I said it. Its role is to galvanize the team by bringing together the Territory, Concept and Promise in one place for internal review and agency direction. It’s efficient, but it’s not a driver of communications strategy or language. Positioning is how we talk to each other in shorthand about the product. Not how we talk to consumers. So, write it whenever you want. Or don’t, if it doesn’t serve the team. Scandalous, I know.

Why bother using these tools to build a communications strategy? Because the discipline outlined here does several important things:

· It ensures the team concurs on product benefits and the consumer needs they are addressing.

· It allows for meaningful testing intervals with consumers to validate consumer problems, insights and solutions.

· It grounds the communications team in what they must convey to consumers and how to bring it to life in words and visuals.

· It makes sure the product is aligned with others in the company’s portfolio, and has a role in maximizing share and penetration for the brand.

So, the next time you think a product is in need of “repositioning”, consider first whether it is making a strong promise and keeping it. After all, consumers buy a product for its compelling promise, not its position on a brand map.

Concept Screening: Redefining the Task and Tools

All of a sudden, several companies have asked me about new ways to screen concepts with consumers.  When I ask them why this has become an immediate concern, they cite one or more of the following:

• Project timelines have shortened and brand owners need to make better decisions in less time, and with fewer steps.
• With more experience launching and evaluating new products in the marketplace, brand owners realize that their research tools aren’t helping them to pick winners as often as they should.
• The cost of producing models or prototypes for review doesn’t align with today’s budgets.  Brand owners need valid, early-stage assessment of multiple concepts without development cost.
• Consumers have become more astute, coached and practiced at providing feedback.  Their intent isn’t malicious, but it stems from a desire to please recruiters and the corporate deep pockets that are paying them and weighing their words.

Today’s marketers need to get an early bead on the perceptual, emotional and functional variables at work in a concept set.  It’s no longer a matter of flashing some concept sketches and getting visceral feedback.  Focus group discussions just can’t dissect concepts into what’s truly working, what isn’t and why.  Instead, they provide a murky, unfocused and less actionable reaction that is often limited to “I like it” or “I don’t like it”.

Volumetric and conjoint tools are useful, but too little, too late.  At that point, you’ve whittled 30 concepts down to 3.  But have you chosen the right ones?  And more to the point, what if the right solution was a hybrid of attributes not found in one cohesive concept?  By picking a few, you have by definition sub-optimized the screening process.  While the “winner” will be relatively more attractive than the others, who knows what you’ve left behind? Or what combination of attributes might have been a stronger absolute performer?

So what do you do?  First, abandon your notion of what “concept screening” means.  The evaluation of individual, fully integrated product concepts at an early stage is inherently flawed in execution.  Every comparison is a mixed bag of feature apples and oranges.  Some overlap in the concepts and some don’t.  Each offers a different way to interact on shelf and in use.  Or, it doesn’t.  Asking consumers which of 20 concepts they like in the midst of all these moving parts is an exercise designed to fail.

What’s the better way?  First, let’s come at the problem from another direction.  Redefine concept screening as “attribute” screening.  In the early stages of concept development, concepts are too immature for valid independent screening.  They are comprised of different, rather raw ways of delivering certain valued utilities.  You can’t even call these “features” yet.  So the right question is not “which concept does the consumer prefer”, but “which set of attributes across concepts delivers the most consumer value?”

Am I talking about an early conjoint test?  Not really, because this approach answers both the “whats” and the “whys” in vivid perceptual and functional terms.  And if presented properly, the answers are not constrained by invalid verbal response or feature interpretations that may miss the mark.  Once attributes are properly explored and valued, they can be recast in an optimized product configuration or, at the very least, a given concept can be chosen that does the best job of delivering on captured consumer expectations.

Are there any research tools that can provide a solid, early stage concept (er…attribute) assessment to help narrow the field and guide development?  As you might expect, I’ve invented a few, and have been using them successfully for some time.  They are grounded in qualitative methods, yet have “qual / quant” benefits.  You can find out more about them on this site in the Tools section.  Or, just get in touch with me.

Original Cartoon: How Marketers and Designers Co-Exist

When I first wrote and published this cartoon, some were offended.  Thankfully, both sides took me to task.  But while the depiction might be stereotypical in equal opportunity fashion, I think the point is valid.  At least the less obvious point.  The most obvious point is that marketers and designers solve problems differently.  Newsbreaking, I know.

Less apparent may be the idea that in spite of different ways of viewing the world, marketers and designers desperately need each other.  And not because we expect creative and analytical minds to sit in separate corners performing the discrete tasks to which they are best suited.  But because when they work together on the very same task, the results are better.

Why?  Think about the engine and transmission of a car.  One generates unbridled horsepower.  The other makes that power more efficient and purposeful, delivering it to the road.  Some would argue that the transmission can choke off and constrain the engine.  Instead, I think it harnesses and distributes the power as needed and helps the engine react to road conditions.

In the same way, the analytical mind can focus and guide the creative mind in very deliberate fashion to put the horsepower against the project parameters that matter most.  Not to elaborate here, but that’s what my KMG Innovation Methodology is basically all about.

So, the next time you see marketers and designers on a collision course, try working through the gears together.