"Structuring the Fuzz"
The Design of Ideation for
New Product Ideas
By Arthur VanGundy PhD
"It is better to ask some of the questions than to know all the answers."
—James Thurber
New product development uses a three-phase problem solving process common to many disciplines. These typically are:
(1) research— analyzing and defining a problem,
(2) generating concepts, and
(3) testing, selling and implementing.
The research phase frequently is referred to as the "Fuzzy Front End," since uncertainty exists about the nature of a product category and / or market. Generating concepts assumes that the Fuzzy Front End has been clarified sufficiently to produce testable product concepts.
This stage also could be viewed as the "Muddled Middle," since poor or inadequate problem clarification often results in disjointed searches for product concepts. The third phase might be described as the "Battled Back End" because struggles often exist in selecting concepts, managing the interface between marketing and R&D, and in persuading others to prototype or launch a product.
In the Beginning…
"I don't know where to begin," said Alice. "Begin at the beginning," the King said, gravely, "and go till you come to the end; then stop."
—Lewis Carroll
Asking the right questions up front helps create frames for the stimuli needed to develop and design ideation techniques. The questions are the tough part; getting the ideas is relatively easy.
"We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time."
—T. S. Eliot
My talk today will focus on the beginning or Fuzzy Front End—framing new product opportunities. The key to generating marketable products lies in how we handle this framing. It isn't generating ideas that is important; it is, instead, framing an opportunity or problem by generating "discovery" questions to shed light on what we want to do. We then are more likely to address the "correct" problem which, in turn, helps lead us directly to the "Big Ideas" we want.
Albert Einstein supposedly was asked what he would do if he had one hour to save the world from nuclear destruction. He said (paraphrased), "I would spend the first 55 minutes analyzing and understanding the problem and the next five minutes generating ideas." Breakthrough innovations don't occur by accident; they must be deliberately "plotted" and cleverly crafted through understanding of a brand, product, or business segment.
Incremental vs. Quantum Product Change
Many opportunities exist for innovation in new product development. The trick is how to find them. The most important ones occur when we recognize the perceptual frames or boxes in which we operate. As the old saying goes, "If you don’t know where you are, any road will get you there." You first must know what box you are in before you can move around in it or move to another one.
Every product category or platform represents a separate box. But each box is more—it is a set of values, emotions, and attributes that define a perceptual reality about a brand. Once you’ve identified a box, you will have to move around inside of it to keep fresh perspectives. That is, you have to ask questions and decide how to improve it (e.g., with line extensions) and when to move to another box or category (e.g., to enter new business segments).
Questions are the engines we use to move within and between boxes. They determine if we will achieve incremental or quantum (breakthrough) changes. Incremental changes, such as line extensions, are relatively easy to generate with a few simple questions. Quantum changes, in contrast, require more profound questions about core issues and assumptions.
Solving the "Right" Problem
"The hardest assumption to challenge is the one you don't even know
you're making."
—Douglas Adams
"The uncreative mind can spot wrong answers, but it takes a very creative mind to spot wrong questions."
—Anthony Jay
Contrary to what most of us have been taught, "real-life" problems aren't presented to us neatly packaged. We usually have to pull them out of complicated, "fuzzy" situations. Jumping right in and generating solutions is the worst thing to do when there is major uncertainty.
The "problem" with that last statement is that we often don't even know when we are unclear about a problem. The result frequently is that we solve the "wrong" problem correctly. As Ian Mitroff notes, it is "…far better to generate an approximate solution to the right problem than an exact solution to the wrong problem!"
An exact solution to the wrong problem keeps you on a certain, unproductive path; an approximate solution to the right problem at least gives you some hope for resolution.
"Next to being right in the world, the best of all things is to be clearly
and definitely wrong."
—T. H. Huxley
How do you know when you have the "right" problem? Well, you can't be absolutely certain. However, you can increase the odds by simply challenging all assumptions about a problem—especially what are "assumed" to be the most obvious ones.
Einstein is famous for noting, "The important thing is to not stop questioning." Don't accept "conventional" wisdom as the truth. Einstein didn't. He constantly questioned the theories of his day.
The truth is not dependent on the number of observers. However, the truth in any situation can be approximated by asking questions which force us to consider new perspectives. The more questions we ask, the closer we are to solving the "right" problem.
Pages 1|2|3|4|5|6
