Monthly Archives: May 2022

Prototyping with Users is a Human-Centered Approach to Testing Ideas

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the rapidly evolving landscape of innovation, creating solutions that resonate with users is more crucial than ever. The key to successful innovation is not just creating value but delivering it in a way that meets users’ needs and expectations. This is where human-centered prototyping comes into play. By involving users in the prototyping process, organizations can gather valuable insights, refine their ideas, and ultimately create more meaningful products and services.

Why Human-Centered Prototyping?

Traditional approaches to prototyping often place the design team at the center, focusing on functionality and technical feasibility. However, this can lead to solutions that miss the mark in terms of user experience and desirability. Human-centered prototyping, on the other hand, involves users as co-creators. This approach ensures that prototypes are not only technically sound but also aligned with users’ real-world needs and behaviors.

1. Engaging Users Early and Often

By bringing users into the prototyping phase from the start, organizations can uncover unexpected use cases, validate assumptions, and identify pain points that may not be immediately obvious. Engaging users early helps to build empathy and ensures that the final product is grounded in reality.

2. Rapid Iteration and Feedback Loops

Human-centered prototyping emphasizes rapid iteration. By quickly creating and testing prototypes with users, teams can learn and adapt in real-time. This continuous feedback loop encourages experimentation and reduces the risk of costly failures further down the line.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Airbnb’s Evolution through User Insights

Airbnb’s rise to prominence is a testament to the power of user-centered prototyping. In its early days, the founders faced significant challenges in gaining traction. To address this, they adopted a strategy of directly engaging with their users — both hosts and guests.

By conducting in-person visits and creating low-fidelity prototypes of their platform, Airbnb’s team gathered firsthand insights into the needs and pain points of their users. This process revealed critical aspects, such as the importance of trust and the need for detailed property descriptions and quality photos.

Through continuous iteration based on real user feedback, Airbnb was able to refine their platform, resulting in a user experience that feels both personalized and intuitive. This approach was instrumental in transforming their business model into a globally recognized brand.

Case Study 2: IDEO’s Design Thinking in the Healthcare Sector

IDEO, a leader in applying design thinking to solve complex problems, utilized human-centered prototyping to innovate in the healthcare sector. They partnered with a hospital to improve patient experience in the emergency department.

IDEO’s process involved shadowing medical staff, interviewing patients, and creating role-playing scenarios to simulate the patient journey. By developing storyboards and low-fidelity prototypes, they could quickly test and iterate on different aspects of the experience.

One of the key insights was the importance of communication in alleviating patient anxiety. IDEO’s prototypes included redesigned information boards and communication tools that made processes more transparent and efficient. The result was a significant improvement in patient satisfaction and operational efficiency.

Conclusion

Human-centered prototyping is more than just a method; it’s a mindset that prioritizes empathy, collaboration, and real-world validation. By involving users throughout the prototyping process, organizations can create solutions that are not only innovative but also relevant and impactful.

As we move forward, the organizations that embrace this human-centered approach will be best positioned to navigate the complexities of innovation in the digital age. The lessons from companies like Airbnb and IDEO provide a compelling roadmap for leveraging user insights to drive meaningful change and deliver exceptional products and services.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Creating Innovation with Hardcore Soft Skills

Leave a reply

Creating Innovation with Hardcore Soft Skills

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Yadira Caro on the Hardcore Soft Skills Podcast.

In the episode I define what innovation really is, how people, process and technology come together to create innovation and where people go wrong.

The conversation includes a discussion of how to craft successful innovation teams because it’s such a crucial factor for successful innovation.

I also speak about the peril of idea fragments and the importance of respecting your employees by putting funding and execution capabilities in place BEFORE you ask your employees for even a single idea.

We talk about top-down innovation…

We talk about bottom-up or middle-out innovation…

And, we also speak about many different innovation misconceptions.

So, I encourage you to check out the episode!

You can listen to the embedded podcast above or click this link to go to the podcast page.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

OKRs vs. KPIs: Choosing the Right Framework for Innovation

Leave a reply

OKRs vs. KPIs: Choosing the Right Framework for Innovation

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In the world of innovation, measuring success is as crucial as the innovation process itself (a powerful one being The Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation from Braden Kelley). Among the most popular tools for tracking progress are OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). Though they often appear interchangeable, each serves distinct purposes and can significantly impact the direction and success of innovation initiatives. So, how do we choose the right framework for fostering innovation?

Understanding OKRs and KPIs

OKRs are a framework that sets ambitious objectives linked with quantifiable key results. Invented by Intel and popularized by Google, OKRs encourage stretching beyond comfort zones to achieve groundbreaking advances.

“OKRs are not about spreadsheets. They are about focused and inspired work.” – John Doerr

KPIs, on the other hand, are metrics used to evaluate the performance of organizations, employees, or particular activities. They are generally well-defined and are used to track targets and processes that are stable and need consistency.

Case Study 1: Google – The Triumph of OKRs

Google’s remarkable growth and innovation can, in part, be attributed to its successful use of OKRs. Larry Page and Sergey Brin adopted OKRs from Intel, aiming to balance daunting aspirations with precise actions.

In a pivotal instance, Google aimed to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” The associated key results included increasing the number of pages indexed and enhancing user satisfaction through a streamlined user interface. This clear alignment of bold objectives and tangible results spurred innovation without stifling creativity, showcasing the transformative power of OKRs.

Case Study 2: A Traditional Manufacturer – The Stability of KPIs

Consider a traditional manufacturing company focused on operational efficiency and quality control. Here, KPIs are indispensable for maintaining precision and reliability in production.

The company aimed to reduce waste and improve product quality. By utilizing KPIs such as scrap rate, production downtime, and customer defect rate, they implemented incremental improvements that led to significant cost savings and enhanced quality.

This structure allowed them to consistently meet customer expectations and stay competitive, showcasing how KPIs serve businesses prioritizing stability and incremental innovation.

When to Use OKRs

OKRs shine in environments where transformative change is sought. Think of startups, tech firms, or any company looking to disrupt the status quo. OKRs encourage risk-taking, freeing teams to explore uncharted territories. They are ideal for organizations that embrace experimentation and are willing to pivot based on insights and discoveries.

When to Use KPIs

KPIs are optimal for situations that require reliability, consistency, and precise tracking. They fit well in established processes where steady improvement and performance monitoring are crucial. Industries like manufacturing, logistics, or healthcare, where the margin for error is minimal, benefit greatly from KPIs.

Integrating OKRs and KPIs for Holistic Innovation

Rather than choosing between OKRs and KPIs, consider blending them. Organizations can leverage the ambitious spirit of OKRs while grounding them with the stable, measurable metrics of KPIs.

For instance, a tech company could set ambitious OKRs to innovate a new product line with radical features, using KPIs to monitor development timelines, budget adherence, and defect rates. Such integration ensures a balance between aspiration and accountability, driving sustainable innovation.

Conclusion

The choice between OKRs and KPIs ultimately hinges on your organizational objectives, industry demands, and desired outcomes. Understanding their intrinsic differences and strategic applications is paramount in optimizing innovation effectiveness.

By carefully considering your framework choice and exploring the potential of combining these tools, businesses can foster an innovative culture that is both adventurous and accountable, paving the way for sustained success.

Innovation thrives on clarity, ambition, and measurable outcomes. Whether through OKRs, KPIs, or a tailor-made blend, harnessing the right framework is key to nurturing the next breakthrough.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Taking Personal Responsibility – Back to Leadership Basics

1 Reply

Taking Personal Responsibility – Back to Leadership Basics

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

I was first introduced to the principle of Taking Personal Responsibility when I attended a number of experiential workshops facilitated by Robert Kiyosaki who is now well known globally as the successful entrepreneurial author of the “Rich Dad Poor Dad” book series. At that time, in the late 1980s, the concept simply involved taking personal responsibility for your role in getting the results you get, in both challenging and problematic situations.

This principle has since evolved as the most crucial foundation for developing our emotionally intelligent, conscious, and transformational leadership capabilities. Largely through focusing on the development of self-awareness and self-regulation skillsets, which are especially important skills to cultivate in times of extreme uncertainty.

Blaming, Justifying, and Denying

Taking personal responsibility involves encouraging people to step up and out of blaming themselves or others, out of justifying their position or denying what is really going on to largely avoid the cognitive, emotional, and visceral results and consequences of their actions.

Which are essentially, largely unconscious defensive reactions to the problem or situation. So, it sounds quite simple, yet, even now, it’s still largely a countercultural principle, and a neurologically challenging one, because we are wired to survive (fight/flight/freeze) in the face of what we perceive as danger!

Especially when many of us are living in an oppositional blaming and shaming political environment, or within a passively or aggressively defensive organizational culture. Where a large section of the community, has been forced by the constraints of the pandemic, into fearing that their security and survival needs will not be met. Alternately, the great resignation and the nature of the virtual hybrid workplace have increased some people’s fears about even being able to get their jobs done!

All of this creates distorted thoughts and language that focus on “scarcity” where many people are fearing that they are not “enough” and do not have “enough” to deal with their current circumstances. Rather than leaning towards exploring and eliciting the possibilities and opportunities available in our abundant world. As there is no clear playbook about how people can effectively and responsibly lead and manage in this unique 21st-century context, many people are floundering, languishing into largely emotionally overwhelmed states.

Where it is easier, and sometimes safer, to be a victim, blame and shame others for their helpless or powerless situation, or to justify and deny any need to change their perspective about it, never mind their role in causing their own anxious and unresourceful emotional states.

Back to Leadership Basics

Yet, it is more important than ever, for leaders and managers to help people:

Take ownership of their consequences and be responsible for the emotional, cognitive, and visceral results of their actions,
Authentically connect, empower, and enable people and communities to flourish,
Provide safe, transparent, trusted environments and interdependence where people can dare to think differently and potentially thrive.

This means that the range of crises, uncertainty, and disruptions we are experiencing now is forcing us to go back to basic 101 management and leadership principles.

According to McKinsey & Co in a recent article “A Leaders Guide – communicating with teams, stakeholders and communities during Covid 19” – “Crises come in different intensities. As a “landscape-scale” event, the coronavirus has created great uncertainty, elevated stress and anxiety, and prompted tunnel vision, in which people focus only on the present rather than toward the future. During such a crisis, when information is unavailable or inconsistent, and when people feel unsure about what they know (or anyone knows), behavioral science points to an increased human desire for transparency, guidance, and making sense out of what has happened”.

The Maturity Continuum – Shifting to I and We

The principle of taking personal responsibility has evolved and been enhanced significantly through the work of Steve Covey, in the “Seven Habits of Effective People” and provides the core foundations for transformational and conscious leadership through the “Maturity Continuum”:

Dependence is the paradigm of you – you take care of me; you come through for me; you didn’t come through for me; I blame you for the results. Dependent and approval-seeking people need others to get what they want.
Independence is the paradigm of I – I can do it; I am responsible; I am self-reliant; I can choose. Independent people get what they want through their own efforts.
Interdependence is the paradigm of we – we can do it; we can cooperate; we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together. Interdependent people combine their efforts with the efforts of others to achieve their greatest success.

Putting the Maturity Continuum to Work

In the early 2000s I was an associate of Corporate Vision, Australia’s first culture change and transformation consultancy, now the globally successful Walking the Talk organisation, for fourteen years.

Where every culture, leadership, team development, or change program we designed and presented, introduced taking personal responsibility, as a fundamental, core learning principle. Aligning it with the principle of – For things to change first I must change, which deeply challenged and disrupted people’s belief systems, habitual mindsets, thinking styles, and ways of acting.

As a seasoned coach of twenty years, these two core principles seem to still profoundly challenge the majority of my coaching clients across the world, no matter how senior their role or position is, or how knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced they are!

Where many managers and leaders have failed to self-regulate, lack self-awareness, and have unconsciously slipped into feeling victimized, powerless, helpless, and in some instances, even hopeless about their futures where some are:

Feeling frozen, inert, paralyzed, overwhelmed, and immobilized in their abilities to affect any kind of positive change in both their work and home environments.
Unconsciously slipping into blaming and shaming others for their situations,
Justifying their inertia through a range of “reasonable reasons” and “elaborate stories” about how it’s “not their fault” or it’s not “up to them” to make any change.
Simply denying their current consequences, or the importance of needing to take positive actions, and make changes.
Unmotivated, lack any desire for control, or have the personal power to affect change in their situation.

Initiating Taking Personal Responsibility

To accept and share responsibility starts with being bravely willing to courageously connect with our whole selves and consciously stepping back to hit our internal pause button, retreat into silence and stillness, and compassionately ask:

What happened?
What can I/we learn from it?
What can I/we then do to create it?

Taking personal responsibility becomes a compassionate, creative, and courageous exercise in continuous learning, self-awareness, and emotional self-regulation in ways that safely disrupt people’s defensiveness and awaken them to the possibility of being personally powerful in tough situations.

It is also the basis for taking intelligent actions catalyze and cause positive outcomes, that deliver real solutions to crises, complex situations, and difficult business problems.

This is the first in a series of three blogs on the theme of taking responsibility – going back to leadership basics.

Find out more about our work at ImagineNation™

Find out about our learning products and tools, including The Coach for Innovators, Leaders, and Teams Certified Program, a collaborative, intimate, and deeply personalized innovation coaching and learning program, supported by a global group of peers over 9-weeks, starting Tuesday, October 18, 2022. It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that will give you a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem focus, human-centric approach, and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation, and upskill people and teams and develop their future fitness, within your unique context. Find out more about our products and tools.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Inclusive Design

Leave a reply

Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Inclusive Design

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s rapidly evolving world, the need for inclusive design is more pressing than ever. Inclusive design ensures that products, environments, and services are accessible and usable by as many people as possible. It is a philosophy that goes beyond accessibility, focusing on user diversity and varying perspectives.

Cross-disciplinary collaboration is pivotal to inclusive design. By involving diverse disciplines, teams can leverage a broad range of insights and expertise to create solutions that are truly inclusive. This approach brings together different viewpoints, fostering an innovative environment where creative solutions can thrive.

Case Study 1: OXO Good Grips

One exemplary model of cross-disciplinary collaboration in inclusive design is OXO’s Good Grips line of kitchen tools. Initially inspired by a need for user-friendly kitchen tools that cater to people with arthritis, OXO’s design team incorporated professionals from various fields such as industrial design, occupational therapy, and market research.

The collaboration began with direct user input and testing, where users with arthritis provided first-hand insights into their struggles with traditional kitchen tools. The occupational therapists in the team translated these struggles into functional requirements, ensuring ease of use and ergonomic comfort.

Industrial designers brought creativity and technical knowledge to the table, developing prototypes and testing materials that were both durable and comfortable. This cross-disciplinary approach led to the creation of Good Grips tools, which feature larger, cushioned handles that are comfortable for all users, not just those with arthritis.

Case Study 2: Microsoft Inclusive Design Toolkit

Microsoft has long been a champion of inclusive design, developing tools and frameworks that guide cross-disciplinary teams in creating accessible technology. A pivotal example is their Inclusive Design Toolkit, which integrates insights from various fields, including psychology, technology, and user research.

The toolkit’s creation involved collaboration between engineers, designers, and psychologists, ensuring a well-rounded understanding of user needs. Psychologists helped identify cognitive and behavioral patterns among diverse user groups, while engineers and designers developed solutions that accommodated these findings.

Through continuous testing and improvement, facilitated by insights from users with disabilities, Microsoft was able to implement features such as adaptive controllers and voice recognition technologies. This cross-disciplinary effort culminated in products that not only serve users with disabilities but enhance the experience for all users.

Conclusion

These case studies underscore the transformative potential of cross-disciplinary collaboration in inclusive design. By merging expertise from different fields, organizations can foster innovation and creativity, ultimately leading to products that embrace user diversity.

As we move forward, it is imperative to continue championing cross-disciplinary collaboration in design processes. Only then can we create a more inclusive world, where every user, regardless of their abilities or background, can participate fully. Let’s commit to embedding inclusion at the heart of innovation, leveraging diverse perspectives to build solutions that empower all.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Need for a Dignity Economy

Leave a reply

The Need for a Dignity Economy

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Every era has its own ideology that creates assumptions and drives actions. At the turn of the century, titans like J.P. Morgan believed that monopolized industries provided stability against the disruptive influence of competition. More recently, the end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new era of capitalism and democracy.

It didn’t work out that way. Instead we got oligarchy, authoritarian populism and we lost trust in the institutions that used to govern our society. In America, even competitive capitalism has been greatly weakened. We believed that we could leave everything up to market and technological forces, but they failed us.

Today, we are in the midst of a set of profound generational shifts that will rapidly transform our society over the next decade. As we have throughout history, we will need to own up to our past mistakes and chart a new course. That will mean focusing less on technocratic solutions and more on building a culture rooted in basic dignity and respect.

The Rise Of Merit

In 1940, James Conant, the President of Harvard, gave a talk at the University of California that was soon republished in The Atlantic magazine. Entitled, “Education for a Classless Society,” it advocated for the idea of social mobility based on merit, rather than privilege being handed down through inheritance.

To support this ambition, Conant championed the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to help identify talented students for scholarships to Harvard. His hope, largely realized, was that other schools would follow suit and education in America would become a sorting mechanism, choosing men (at the time, it was largely white men) to receive advanced professional training.

Today, we have so thoroughly internalized Conant’s ideal that it’s hard to imagine that things could ever have been any different. College has largely become a prerequisite to a successful career and getting more kids to go to college is a top priority. The federal government spends about $80 billion on higher education programs, but less than $2 billion for vocational training.

As Michael Sandel points out in The Tyranny of Merit, this sorting system has had an insidious effect on our culture. Those who are deemed worthy get all the benefits that society has to offer. Those that are not, are not only left behind, but are seen as “takers” rather than “makers” and therefore undeserving of even basic things like access to health and child care.

Applying An Engineering Mindset

Once you accept the premise of meritocracy, the next logical step would be to optimize for meritocratic traits. We could, following the path James Conant established, develop a series of standardized tests to identify and reward our best students. And why stop there? Why not rate our teachers by their ability to produce students who get the best scores.

We can then extend that approach to all spheres of society. How should we best evaluate and manage the performance of an enterprise? Focus on shareholder value. How are we progressing as a society? Simply look at the GDP and job growth numbers and you should have a pretty good idea. What about countries that are falling behind? Well, just develop a standard reform package and then paint by numbers!

Eventually a clear doctrine emerged: A technocratic elite identifies a minimal number of key performance indicators and then, applying rigorous analytical techniques, devises a strategy to optimize based on those metrics. As the technocrats learn, they begin to build systems to increase efficiency and, eventually, those systems become encoded in algorithms.

This engineering mindset has prevailed for more than a generation and it has failed us. Except for a small slice of society, we’ve become poorer, sicker and more vulnerable. Our markets have weakened. We pay more and get less. We’re not only less happy, anxiety and depression have risen to epidemic levels.

Yet perhaps the most insidious effect of meritocracy and the engineering mindset is how we treat each other. If we believe that we have been anointed, through our talent and effort, for better things, we feel emboldened to consider our fellow citizens as something less than ourselves, which breeds not only inequality, but resentment and mistrust.

Holding Ourselves Accountable

In just one month in 1989, the world saw both the fall of the Berlin Wall and the emergence of the World Wide Web, both of which unleashed enormous enthusiasm and opportunity. We thought we were entering a new era in which democracy, free markets and technology would bring about a better world. We were wrong.

It wasn’t all a mirage. There were genuine accomplishments. I lived in post-communist countries in Eastern Europe for 15 years and the progress made was truly amazing. Miracle cures like cancer immunotherapy have saved millions of lives. The Internet has made it possible for an ordinary teenager today to have better access to information than a professional researcher at a major institution did a generation ago. Those are all great things.

Yet we are, in so many ways, worse off than we were 30 years ago. Productivity growth has been depressed, except for a short uptick from 1996-2004. Despite medical breakthroughs, life expectancy in the US has been declining. Markets are less free and less competitive. Poland and Hungary, previous models of democratic reform, have backslid. Even social mobility in the US, the entire aim or the meritocratic project, has been significantly diminished.

It’s time to hold ourselves accountable and chart a new course. Organizations are more than simple units of production. They are workplaces and members of communities. People are far more than economic inputs that can be reduced to resumes and statistics, but human beings worthy of dignity and respect.

People as Ends in Themselves

One of the things I learned managing companies is how much more effective you can be if you assume that everybody wants to do a good job. It makes it possible to waste less time engineering incentives or enforcing rules and focus more on helping everybody actualize their potential. When you encounter the occasional bad apple, it’s not hard to fire them.

In much the same way, we need to learn to focus less on quantifiable signs of merit and more on dignity by treating people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. Once you do that, it becomes obvious that everybody needs access to health care, that every child should be educated and that everybody deserves to feel safe in their community and in their home.

After all, who says that an anesthesiologist is more worthy than a hospice worker. Or that someone who makes a million dollars a year selling enterprise software makes a greater contribution to society than someone who works in a grocery store during a pandemic. Remuneration simply cannot be the only measure of value.

In the final analysis, ideology should serve people, not the other way around. The success of a society needs to be measured by the well-being of those who live in it. If we increase GDP, but our air and water are more polluted, our children less educated, we live unhappy lives and die deaths of despair, what have we really gained?

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Emotional Well-being as a Pillar of Employee Experience

Leave a reply

Emotional Well-being as a Pillar of Employee Experience

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In the ever-evolving landscape of work, organizations are increasingly recognizing that fostering a positive employee experience is crucial. Traditionally, companies focused on tangible benefits like compensation and office perks. However, it is becoming clearer that emotional well-being is fundamental to a holistic employee experience. As a thought leader in change and innovation, I am committed to exploring how organizations can integrate emotional well-being into their core strategies for sustainable growth and employee satisfaction.

The Importance of Emotional Well-being

Emotional well-being refers to an individual’s ability to manage and express emotions healthily. In the workplace, it impacts productivity, creativity, and overall job satisfaction. Employees who feel emotionally supported are more engaged, motivated, and loyal. Thus, emotional well-being is not just a benefit but a strategic pillar in crafting an exceptional employee experience.

Case Study #1: Google’s Comprehensive Mental Health Program

Google, known for its pioneering employee policies, has been at the forefront of integrating emotional well-being into the employee experience. The company recognized that stress and mental health issues were affecting productivity and employee satisfaction.

Google’s approach includes a comprehensive mental health program that offers resources such as counseling services, stress management workshops, and meditation classes. They also provide tools and platforms for ongoing peer support.

The results have been impressive. Google reports increased employee retention and engagement scores, along with a noticeable decrease in burnout-related issues. The company’s success underscores the importance of addressing emotional well-being proactively.

Case Study #2: Salesforce’s Ohana Culture

Salesforce has adopted the Hawaiian concept of “Ohana,” meaning family, to craft a nurturing and supportive workplace environment. This culture emphasizes empathy, mutual support, and open communication as central to the employee experience.

Salesforce’s initiatives include offering personalized mental health resources such as therapy sessions and wellness reimbursements. They also conduct regular mental health surveys to tailor support to employee needs effectively.

By treating employees like family, Salesforce has achieved remarkable results. Employee satisfaction scores are high, and the company has become recognized as one of the best places to work globally. Salesforce’s approach highlights how cultural integration of emotional well-being can lead to profound organizational benefits.

Integrating Emotional Well-being into Organizational Strategy

To successfully integrate emotional well-being into the employee experience, organizations must move beyond traditional benefits and adopt a holistic approach:

Leadership Commitment: Senior leaders must champion emotional well-being initiatives, demonstrating commitment from the top levels of management.
Tailored Programs: Programs should be adaptable to meet diverse employee needs, considering varying cultural and personal backgrounds.
Open Communication: Encourage open dialogue about mental health to de-stigmatize these discussions and foster a supportive environment.
Continuous Feedback: Regularly solicit employee feedback to adapt and improve emotional well-being initiatives.

Conclusion

As organizations strive to innovate and remain competitive, embedding emotional well-being into the employee experience is not merely an option but a necessity. The insights from Google and Salesforce demonstrate that when employees feel emotionally supported, companies benefit in terms of productivity, retention, and reputation.

Empowering employees to thrive emotionally creates a ripple effect that enhances business performance and contributes to a more humane and sustainable workplace culture. By prioritizing emotional well-being, companies can build a workforce that is not only successful but truly fulfilled.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

What Makes Digital Health Clinical Trials Different?

Leave a reply

What Makes Digital Health Clinical Trials Different?

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers, M.D.

For digital health entrepreneurs, unless your intended use puts you in the FDA category of a medical device, you don’t need to show that your product is safe and effective, let alone cost-effective. In most cases, rather, you need to demonstrate to investors that it can quickly scale and make money and the sooner the better. Too bad. You would think that whether you have to or not that prudent sick care business practices would mean creating a product that does what you say it will do. That’s why only a handful of the hundreds of thousands of digital health apps are clinically valid.

However, most sick care digipreneurs avoid costly, risky trials because they are afraid of possible negative results that could be the death blow of their company, like many early stage biotech or device companies that wake up to see their valuations plummet due to a failed trial.

Digital health regulation is changing rapidly as the FDA tries to keep up with the pace of change and new products and services. On FDA regulation, the rule—for now, at least—is clear: Any device that is “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease of other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” requires FDA approval, Curtis said. This goes for devices meant for humans and animals, as the FDA regulates both.

The emergence of digital therapeutics, the incorporation of AI and the adoption of remote sensing is challenging us how to demonstrate safety and efficacy, if not cost-efffectiveness.

For example, there’s been an explosion in the number and variety of digital apps purporting to address behavioral health issues, but a recent study published in Nature Digital Medicine casts doubts on their backing by legitimate scientific research. Based on the literature review conducted by the researchers, only 14 percent of apps described design or development that was based on real-world evidence.

One commentary to a recently published article on digital health trials noted that “The pipeline of digital health studies appears to be promising,” noted the researchers, but they also underscored that the small sample sizes in many studies “could limit their ability to yield a high level of evidence, demonstrate value, or motivate stakeholder adoption.”

Digital health technologies hold great promise to solve some of the biggest problems in our healthcare system, including achieving higher quality, lower cost, and greater access to care. a better doctor and patient experience and efficiencies in business processes. In the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs, reported that scant evidence exists demonstrating the clinical impact of twenty top-funded digital health companies. These companies tended not to study the clinical effectiveness of their products in terms of key healthcare metrics like patient outcomes, cost, and access to care.

They found 104 peer-reviewed published studies on the products or services of these companies. The majority of the studies were from three companies. Nine companies had no peer-reviewed publications. Only 28% of the studies targeted patients with high-burden, high-cost conditions or risk factors. Healthy volunteers were the most commonly studied population. Further, 15% of all studies assessed the product’s “clinical effectiveness” and only eight studies assessed clinical effectiveness in a high-cost, high-burden population. The eight clinical effectiveness studies measured impact in terms of patient outcomes, while no studies measured impact in terms of cost or access to care. There were no clinical effectiveness studies in heart disease, COPD, mental health conditions, hyperglycemia, or low back pain. Studies that did not assess clinical effectiveness may have intended to validate the product against a gold standard measurement or report feasibility of use.

This is of particular interest given the incredible amount of funding, interest, and hype in digital health. Although these companies were only a small portion of total digital health companies, they were a large portion of total private funding and had the most resources to demonstrate impact. Further, since “digital health” currently encompasses myriad technology types and approaches, these findings have broad implications.

From text messages to mobile apps, digital health devices are becoming increasingly important in clinical trials for their ability to streamline trials, lower site burden, and improve the patient experience. However, manufacturers must consider the safety, reliability, and convenience of these devices in order to effectively implement them into medical device trials. The digital components of these medical device trials must adhere to the same rigorous regulatory standards as the device itself, which can pose significant hurdles for some sponsors. Those hurdles include:

Usability and Accuracy. Sponsors must be able to determine that a device is providing the desired endpoint values in a trial. The metric should be accurate and presented in a usable format.
Safety. The manufacturer should be able to provide highly secure methods for transmitting data between the digital health device and the analysis site.
Convenience. The manufacturer should be able to provide logistical support to decrease the site and subject burden. They should also be able to provide full documentation of engineering verification for the devices.
Ease of Use. It is important to consider how the patient will interact with the device. It needs to be an appropriate size and weight, and it should allow the patient to move and behave in the same way he or she normally would.
Reliability. To maintain data continuity, the device should have a battery life sufficient to allow it to collect data for long periods of time with minimal glitches.

In another study of digital health apps for COVID 19, apps were evaluated using the Systems Wide Analysis of mobile health-related technologies (SWAT) tool in line with the NHS Digital Assessment Questionnaire and were given a score for each category (usability, functionality, ethical values, security and privacy, user-perceived value, design, and content) by two independent assessors.

A recent review concluded that “Safety of apps is an emerging public health issue. The available evidence shows that apps pose clinical risks to consumers. Involvement of consumers, regulators, and healthcare professionals in development and testing can improve quality. Additionally, mandatory reporting of safety concerns is needed to improve outcomes.”

The concept of a “digital clinical trial” involves leveraging digital technology to improve participant access, engagement, trial-related measurements, and/or interventions, enable concealed randomized intervention allocation, and has the potential to transform clinical trials and to lower their cost. In April 2019, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) held a workshop bringing together experts in clinical trials, digital technology, and digital analytics to discuss strategies to implement the use of digital technologies in clinical trials while considering potential challenges. This position paper builds on this workshop to describe the current state of the art for digital clinical trials including (1) defining and outlining the composition and elements of digital trials; (2) describing recruitment and retention using digital technology; (3) outlining data collection elements including mobile health, wearable technologies, application programming interfaces (APIs), digital transmission of data, and consideration of regulatory oversight and guidance for data security, privacy, and remotely provided informed consent; (4) elucidating digital analytics and data science approaches leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms; and (5) setting future priorities and strategies that should be addressed to successfully harness digital methods and the myriad benefits of such technologies for clinical research.

But, when it comes to human subject pilots and trials, there are several glaring differences of digital health trials compared to drug and device trials:

Intellectual property concerns are usually lower in digital trials
Digital trials need to be done faster because the markets change so quickly and the barriers to entry are lower
IRBs set up to protect patients in drug and device trials are not comfortable with digital health trials
We are still trying to define the ethics of data science
Cybersafety is as important as patient safety
Digital health clinical trial ecosystems are primitive compared to drug and device trial ecosystems although both have recruitment and completion challenges
Data trials need mostly patient data, not the physical presence of patients
HIPAA rules get in the way
Lack of interoperability and getting data from non-traditional hospital based HIT systems skews the data and , consequently, the results
Funding sources for conducting digital health trials are scarce. Investors don’t fund research projects. They fund product development and marketing. Here are some ideas on how to convince your CFO to pilot, test and integrate your IT solution.

The FDA has stated their position when it comes to the regulation of mobile medical apps.

Digital health has evolved because:

Interoperability is improving
Sick care is turning into health care
The medical business model is changing
Costs continue to spiral out of control
The recognition by digipreneurs and investors that sick care is ripe for digitization
Patient and provider frustration with a lousy experience
Cheap mobile and internet technologies
Regulatory, IP and reimbursement changes
The breakdown of barriers to diffusion and implementation
Digital heath ecosystems

An international consortium of medical experts has introduced the first official standards for clinical trials that involve artificial intelligence. The move comes at a time when hype around medical AI is at a peak, with inflated and unverified claims about the effectiveness of certain tools threatening to undermine people’s trust in AI overall.

Collaboratively developed guidelines for the privacy, content, security, design and operability of mobile health (mHealth) apps have been released. Compliance with the guidelines can provide a level of assurance that an app delivers value to patients, physicians and other users.

The guidelines were developed by Xcertia, a nonprofit founded by the AMA and other major health and technology organizations. They address concerns that have hindered the use of mHealth apps. Fears that an app may expose personal health information, that its content is inaccurate or that its functionality is limited have slowed adoption of mHealth digital health tools.

These advances are permeating all aspects of clinical research but the recent acceleration of decentralised and hybrid clinical trials (DCTs) illustrates how far reaching digitalisation is becoming. Patient-centricity has been driving the decentralisation of clinical trials for some time but the rapid emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic required the pharmaceutical industry to pivot operations and accelerate its DCT programmes. This response required a corresponding ramp-up in mobile technology, data management and AI.

AI can provide insight into protocol complexity and contribute to protocol designs better adapted to DCTs, including the creation of virtual control arms. The intelligent use of data to include historical data as well as the data collected during a clinical trial can optimise the number and diversity of patients needed to reach the desired endpoints and give the patients who do participate a higher value experience.

Until and unless we address ongoing digital health clinical trial issues , sick care digipreneurs will have little or no incentive to conduct digital health clinical trials using precious startup funds. Instead, they will continue to sell snake oil and lots of folks will buy it. Maybe you should sleep on it.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Challenges and Opportunities in Scaling Social Innovations

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s fast-paced world, social innovations are pivotal in addressing complex societal challenges. These are novel solutions that meet social needs more effectively or efficiently than existing alternatives. However, scaling these innovations to achieve broader impact is fraught with challenges. In this article, we’ll explore both the obstacles and opportunities inherent in scaling social innovations, supported by real-life case studies.

Understanding the Challenges

One of the primary challenges in scaling social innovations is the resource constraint. Many social enterprises operate on tight budgets, limiting their capacity to expand. Furthermore, impact measurement is often complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to prove efficacy to potential stakeholders.

Another significant challenge is maintaining the integrity and core values of the innovation during scaling. As organizations grow, they risk diluting their mission and losing the elements that made their innovation successful initially.

Seizing Opportunities

Despite these challenges, there are several opportunities to scale social innovations successfully. First, leveraging partnerships and collaborations can provide access to additional resources, networks, and expertise. Second, advancements in technology facilitate wider reach and efficient impact tracking, proving invaluable for scaling efforts.

Moreover, policy support and favorable regulatory environments can create conducive ecosystems for scaling. Building strong stakeholder relationships and continuous learning loops also enhance scalability.

Case Study 1: Grameen Bank

The Grameen Bank, founded by Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh, is an outstanding example of a social innovation that successfully scaled. It introduced microcredit as a way to alleviate poverty by providing small loans to impoverished entrepreneurs without requiring collateral.

Challenges: Initially, the bank faced skepticism from traditional financial institutions and cultural barriers. The idea of lending without collateral was perceived as risky and unconventional.

Opportunities and Success: The Grameen Bank’s scaling success can be attributed to its innovative group lending model, which fostered community accountability. The bank also prioritized local partnerships and trained its staff to understand community dynamics, ensuring a deep-rooted presence. Today, the Grameen Bank model is replicated in over 100 countries, proving the impact and scalability of microfinance.

Case Study 2: Teach For All

Teach For All is a global network of independent organizations working to expand educational opportunity by enlisting talented graduates and professionals to teach in high-need communities for at least two years.

Challenges: A significant challenge Teach For All faced was adapting its model to different countries with varying educational needs, cultures, and policies. Additionally, recruitment and training at scale presented logistical hurdles.

Opportunities and Success: Teach For All overcame these challenges by adopting a flexible, locally-adaptive model. By empowering local partners to customize implementation to their unique context, Teach For All maintained its core mission while respecting local nuances. The organization leveraged global learnings and cross-border partnerships, enhancing both scope and depth of impact. Today, Teach For All operates in over 60 countries, impacting millions of students globally.

Conclusion

While scaling social innovations presents distinct challenges, the examples of Grameen Bank and Teach For All demonstrate that it is indeed possible to expand impact effectively and sustainably. By recognizing and addressing scaling barriers such as resource limitations, execution risks, and impact measurement difficulties, social innovators can unlock immense potential.

Through strategic partnerships, use of technology, and adaptive frameworks, social innovations can not only grow but thrive, continuously transforming and uplifting communities worldwide.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Celebrating Failure Via Lessons in Organizational Culture

Leave a reply

Celebrating Failure Via Lessons in Organizational Culture

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, organizations striving for innovation and transformation must foster a culture that embraces failure as a stepping stone to success. Failure is often stigmatized, yet it serves as one of the most potent learning tools available. By celebrating failure and extracting valuable lessons, organizations can adapt, grow, and build resilience.

Understanding the Value of Failure

Failure provides insights that success cannot. It highlights weaknesses in processes, gaps in knowledge, and areas for improvement. A culture that perceives failure as an opportunity rather than a setback encourages experimentation and bold ideas, paving the way for groundbreaking innovation.

Case Study #1: Pixar Animation Studios

The Journey of “Toy Story 2”

Pixar Animation Studios is renowned for its creative brilliance, yet even such an innovative company has faced significant challenges, most notably with the production of “Toy Story 2.” What began as a direct-to-video sequel turned into a major theatrical release, overwhelming the original project plan.

During production, a near-fatal data loss almost wiped out the entire film. The project was saved by a single employee who had a backup copy on her home computer, but the incident forced the team to reflect deeply on their processes and assumptions.

In response, Pixar embraced a culture of reviewing failures openly, investing in better data resilience and project management strategies. By turning this major setback into a learning moment, Pixar transformed its production approach, enhancing communication and collaboration across teams.

Case Study #2: Tata Group

The Nano Car Failure

Tata Motors, part of the Tata Group, launched the Tata Nano in 2008 with great anticipation. Positioned as the world’s cheapest car, the Nano was expected to revolutionize the Indian automotive market.

However, the car failed to meet sales expectations due to design flaws, marketing missteps, and a mismatch with consumer perceptions. Rather than viewing the Nano as a defeat, Tata leveraged its lessons learned to enhance market research processes and product development strategies.

The company has since implemented customer-focused design principles and improved stakeholder engagement in new projects, learning from the mistakes and challenges faced with the Nano.

Principles for Cultivating a Culture that Celebrates Failure

1. Establish Psychological Safety

Employees must feel safe to take risks without fear of judgment or reprisal. Encouraging open dialogue about mistakes and the insights gained from them is crucial for fostering psychological safety.

2. Encourage Experimentation

Create an environment where experimentation is not only allowed but encouraged. Allocate resources and time for innovation projects, and celebrate the learning that comes from both successes and failures.

3. Learn and Iterate

After a failure, conduct a thorough analysis to understand what went wrong and why. Use this information to iterate and improve processes. Document these lessons so future teams can benefit from past experiences.

Conclusion

By embracing failure and integrating its lessons into the organizational fabric, companies unlock pathways to innovation and long-term success. Celebrating failure as a learning opportunity rather than a defeat cultivates a resilient and forward-thinking workplace culture.

In a world where change is the only constant, let us actively seek out and learn from failures, transforming them into stepping stones for future achievements.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.