When Indra Nooyi was Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo from 2006 to 2018, she felt that the company’s innovation process and design experience needed to be reimagined. Nooyi told the Harvard Business Review, “It’s much more than packaging.” She hired Mauro Porcini as Pepsi’s first-ever Chief Design Officer in 2012, emphasizing the importance of design thinking, and systematic inventive thinking in corporate strategy and leadership. “Now, our teams are pushing SIT throughout the entire system, from product development through packaging and labeling, shelf appearance, and consumer interaction.”
According to marketers, the finest insights about new product ideas come from existing and potential customers. However, customers may or may not be able to articulate their exact needs, they may have some vague ideas and as service providers, it becomes imperative to understand not only the voice of customers but find ways and means to understand the mind of the customer. In focus group discussions or customer interviews, generally, they end up sharing their wishlist instead of their need, and it becomes very important for us to decipher what is that we are able to and unable to give them.
A lack of understanding of the entire process brings in product failure or it will lower the service acceptance among the customers, for example, they usually prefer product improvements that are only slightly different from the present version. When these items first join the market, they frequently fail because minor improvements are insufficient to change customers’ long-standing purchasing habits.
Product managers and service providers are encouraged to “think outside the box” as a strategy to get beyond predictable product additions. They are advised to follow their creative instincts and imagine goods that react to customer demands in truly novel ways. However, this type of brainstorming frequently results in a flurry of ideas that, while intriguing, are simply too far out of the company’s brand image or capabilities. They’re rapidly abandoned or, if they make it to market, they’re a complete failure.
So, how can product managers or service providers reach the innovation perfect balance away from existing products to pique interest while remaining within a company’s current positioning and capabilities? One of the techniques which will help overcome these dilemmas is systematic inventive thinking. The research of Genrich S. Altshuller, a Russian engineer who dedicated his professional life attempting to define the creative process, is the foundation for systematic inventive thinking.
He embarked on a massive project in which he evaluated and classified over 200,000 patents, establishing a set of common patterns and categories that he termed ARIZ (Russian for Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving). His students expanded on his concepts and began applying them to various types of problems. Service providers all over the world employ the TRIZ (Theory for Inventive Problem Solving) technique, which is based on Altshuller’s work. Today, it has become a crucial part of the innovation framework, especially for strategic innovation.
There are numerous businesses accomplishing remarkable outcomes by employing this technique. It’s a full revamp of traditional brainstorming, with a highly structured “within the box” approach to idea generation replacing the creative free-for-all. And, unlike most other strategies for developing new products, it begins with an existing product and its qualities rather than with customers and their unmet wants. The fundamental point of the method is to listen to your product’s voice rather than merely your customers.
In the cut throat competition, the hub of innovation – Silicon Valley is constantly shifting the ecosystem of relationships between venture capitalists, researchers, lawyers, entrepreneurs, accountants, service providers, and marketing professionals. As the jack of all trades, Silicon Valley has started and withstood boom-bust cycles by constantly adjusting its social and institutional infrastructure to new technology and market pressures, then utilizing these foundations in the next wave through systematic inventive thinking.
What is Systematic Inventive Thinking?
SIT (Systematic Inventive Thinking) is a technique of thinking in which creativity gets the limelight. It includes five thought patterns that have been employed by humans for thousands of years. It completely contradicts the ‘thinking outside the box’ notion and instead employs thinking inside the box as a guiding principle to demonstrate that creativity is not limited to the privileged few.
SIT is a problem-solving and innovation technique, but it is best known as an innovation methodology. It provides programs to help businesses adapt to changes in company procedures, innovation practices, and culture. When utilized for problem-solving and idea generation, SIT achieves extraordinary results. Worlds’ best organizations deploy this methodology to stay ahead in their game and bring world class products and services way ahead of others. The way businesses create value is evolving as a result of systematic innovative thinking.
SIT – Problem-Solving – Idea Generation
Idea generation is the process by which an organization comes up with answers to a variety of problems. This is the moment to let your imagination go wild – make analogies that barely have any relation with your product, services, or processes; go as far as you can in order to come up with a breakthrough concept. As Einstein said, “There is no way to solve a problem using the same kind of thinking we used while creating them.”
It’s difficult not to get closer to the solution you’re seeking when you generate a lot of ideas at once. However, it’s critical that you follow the proper procedures to avoid squandering your time by generating meaningless data. It’s critical to have a disciplined thinking process to help you whenever you’re faced with ambiguity. According to SIT, innovation happens when:
1: They work in an already known niche.
2: They come up with answers that aren’t tied to any particular situation.
3: They employ SIT’s five strategies.
These methods are present in the products and services you encounter on a daily basis. You will be able to produce concepts that directly reflect the aims of your organization with their assistance.
What are the Five Methods of Systematic Inventive Thinking?
The five steps are at the heart of this method. These “innovative templates” derived from the historical analysis of product development trends, which was based on research conducted by Russian engineer Genrich Altshuller. According to their findings, the majority of successful product innovations follow one of these five patterns. Indeed, we’ve discovered that the patterns can assist predict the birth of new items before market demand signals materialize. The patterns, or templates, are thus beneficial not just for categorizing but also for developing new product concepts.
Subtraction
This step entails removing an important component from a product or service and repurposing it. Previously, that portion was considered a critical component of another product. The idea for a recorder, for example, came from taking Sony’s Walkman and removing the recording function from the overall product.
Multiplication
Multiplication is the process of taking a single component from a product or service and adding it to the whole numerous times. This frequently involves a component that was previously deemed to be of mere value. The Gillette double-bladed razor is a typical example of this pattern. Adding an extra blade to provide another shaving surface isn’t a case of multiplication in the sense that we understand it. Adding a second blade set at a slightly different angle, which raises whiskers so the other blade can cleanly cut them, does, nevertheless, demonstrate this pattern.
Division
When you break down an established product into its component parts, you can see something that was once a unified whole in a whole new light. That shift in viewpoint might prompt you to reorganize those pieces in unexpected ways, or even keep them separate in ways that provide unexpected benefits. Physical division (cutting a product along a physical line), functional division (separating product components with various purposes), and preserving division are all examples of division (when each divided part preserves the characteristics of the entire product).
Task Unification
By allocating a new task to an existing aspect of the product or its surroundings, you can often achieve significant product innovation by combining two tasks into a single component. The core logic behind this job bundling is this: if something already exists in the closed world of the product and its environment, why not check if it can be made to do double duty? The defrosting filament in a vehicle windshield is a famous example of task unification. Automakers were able to eliminate the separate radio antenna, which had been an unsightly addition to the car’s body, by assigning it the additional responsibility of improving radio reception.
Attribute Dependency
Attribute dependency is the process of bringing two recently independent components together and making them rely on one another in a way that adds value. This indicates that a product’s attribute, or component, can change while another attribute stays the same. Consider a typical pair of eyeglasses. There is no connection between the color of the lens and the lighting conditions outside. By establishing a dependent connection, you can create a lens that changes color when exposed to sunlight, removing the need for a separate pair of sunglasses whenever out in the sun.
Although these five patterns appear to be simple, they require some practice to master. “Listening to the voice of your product” necessitates a complete shift of perception. Break down the product into its basic physical components first. Don’t waste time debating which ones should be included; instead, take the time to make a well-thought-out list. A telephone, for example, is made up of a microphone, a keypad, a speaker, a handset, and a base, as well as the wires and other components that link and package these components.
Mindsets for Systematic Inventive Thinking
It’s necessary to grasp what SIT is focused on in order to be able to carry out the strategies stated above in an effective and efficient manner. As a result, the five SIT principles of Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT) are as follows:
Inside-the-box Thinking
The closed world is an important aspect of SIT. Defining a problem world is the first fundamental and key step in SIT. The individual tackling the problem understands that all of the necessary building pieces are present in that world and may be employed to solve the problem. This leads to increased focus and a sense of power and strength, as well as motivation. Problems become tough and enjoyable riddles when approached in this manner.
Function Follows Form
This concept was coined by Roland Finke, and it is regarded as a backward process because the starting point is an existing resource rather than a specific problem or market demand. In other words, new demands that do not yet exist are identified. These are then released onto the market.
Qualitative Change
The qualitative change principle argues that solutions can be found inside a situation and that the problem’s core can be eradicated. This brings the situation to a halt and removes the impediment. Even a formerly bad aspect can be turned into a positive one. In this way, a disadvantage becomes a benefit.
Path of Most Resistance
In the same way that water flows down from mountains following the path of least resistance, it is natural for people to think in the simplest way possible. It becomes increasingly difficult to produce fresh ideas when there is minimal resistance. This is why SIT encourages a different approach, a way that is paradoxical. That is the most difficult path.
Cognitive Fixedness
A state of mind in which a situation or object is perceived and observed in a highly specific way is known as cognitive fixedness. All external aspects are turned off in this mode. It can be accomplished in multiple ways. One method is to look at an object as a whole and consider how it may be reorganized to look different.
The concepts that are “right under our noses” and are tied in some way to our existing reality or perception of the world tend to startle us the most. This is surprising since most people believe that to be innovative, you must venture far beyond your existing domain. Random stimuli are used in methods like brainstorming and SCAMPER to push you “beyond the box” for new and imaginative ideas. The exact reverse is true. The most shocking concepts are right around the corner.
You’ll need to brainstorm without any constraints if you want to be truly distinctive and innovative. The more ideas put forth, the better. This novel approach enables businesses to break out from their usual thought habits and generate innovative ideas. These concepts are subsequently turned into actions, which lead to outcomes.
What will you reimagine and reinvent?
https://hbr.org/2003/03/finding-your-innovation-sweet-spot
https://danlok.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/45ae045f-c609-4058-b71a-e66127d62d47_large.jpg
https://www.millcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Thinking-Inside-the-box.png
https://alcorfund.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MicrosoftTeams-image-4-1-1024×639.png
https://steps-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Methods-logo-1300×520-1.jpg
Written By: Jimmy Jain
Edited By: Afreen Fatima
Society of Design Thinking Professionals
