Author Archives: Braden Kelley

About Braden Kelley

Braden Kelley is a Human-Centered Experience, Innovation and Transformation consultant at HCL Technologies, a popular innovation speaker, and creator of the FutureHacking™ and Human-Centered Change™ methodologies. He is the author of Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire from John Wiley & Sons and Charting Change (Second Edition) from Palgrave Macmillan. Braden is a US Navy veteran and earned his MBA from top-rated London Business School. Follow him on Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

Why MyStarbucksIdea is a Bad Idea

Leave a reply

Today we will examine Starbucks’ open innovation attempt – MyStarbucksIdea.

You may have come across it already, but it is worth examining because it represents one of the largest open innovation efforts to date, and it is the first I have seen built on a customized salesforce.com platform.

Some might say it is just a fancy suggestion box and not an open innovation effort, but it really depends on how you define open innovation.

MyStarbucksIdea.com is open innovation at work, not a mere suggestion box because a suggestion box is a black hole. People submit their suggestion and never know:

  1. If anybody even sees it
  2. What the reaction was to it
  3. What the outcome was
  4. What other people might think of the idea
  5. How other people might make the idea even better

Open innovation principles say that if a company allows people from outside the company to provide ideas that the innovation that comes as a result will be greater than if ideation is maintained as the sole domain of employees. MyStarbucksIdea.com embraces those principles and takes it one step further in that it allows a couple of key community features:

  1. Anyone can submit an idea
  2. Users can vote on different ideas to indicate the wisdom of the crowd
  3. Anyone can build a discussion around an idea by commenting on it
    • As a result their is an opportunity for ideas to be refined and become more compelling than first presented by the original submission
  4. Each registered user has an “inbox” that let’s them see when someone responds to their submission
  5. Finally Starbucks pulls it all together with the “Ideas in Action” page to show what they are doing with the submissions

This kind of implementation has a few fatal flaws however:

  1. Competitors can benefit at the same time and possibly beat Starbucks to the punch if they respond faster
  2. Numerous duplicate submissions over time will make it difficult for users to build upon anything other than the newest or the most popular ideas (which will be difficult to measure given the duplicates)
  3. A lot of the obvious wins will be picked off within the first few months

So should Starbucks keep or ditch MyStarbucksIdea?

To answer that question I must answer it with another question. What is the purpose of innovation?

The purpose of innovation in the corporate world is to increase revenue and/or decrease costs, while also increasing competitive separation. Any other purpose has the potential to increase costs and possibly even to put you further behind your competition.

Innovation in the government or non-profit sectors can support the secondary purpose of facilitating knowledge sharing that the corporate world cannot support.

MyStarbucksIdea is a great implementation for a government or non-profit, but terrible for a corporation.

Here is what Starbucks should do:

  1. Starbucks should switch to a suggestion box format, with a closed community aspect to evolve ideas
    • Inviting people who submit similar suggestions to a closed forum to discuss their idea
    • Inviting top contributors or bloggers to iterate on an idea together privately
  2. Starbucks should throw out innovation challenges instead of hosting an open idea forum
  3. Starbucks should keep the IdeasInAction page to report back on implemented (and only implemented) suggestions and challenge results
  4. Starbucks should offer brand experience prizes (or possibly cash) at whatever level is necessary to encourage submissions and participation (which might be zero initially and escalate over time) while also building brand affinity

Congratulations, Starbucks, this a good first attempt.

However, it falls short of the kind of long-term improvement in innovation capability that ultimately results in a more profitable market leader – that’s what we work with organizations to create.

Followup – Motoring Innovation

Leave a reply

I came across an interesting article today on stackable cars that is a good followup to my article about vehicle ownership and whether the combined Zipcar and Flexcar represent an innovation in the automotive industry.

The stackable electric cars are being developed by MIT with a grant from General Motors, along with an electric scooter. Unlike Zipcar’s round-trip rental policy, MIT is advocating a one-way rental system both for the electric scooters, but also the stackable electric cars. This is similar to the way that free bicycle systems work in several cities around the globe. The main downside will be whether or not a one-way system can maintain even coverage across the city to serve customers.

There is no reason that Zipcar couldn’t benefit from this invention. Assuming that these cars could be purchased by Zipcar, they could make more cars available in a smaller amount of space. This could be quite handy for Zipcar. Do the benefits of a vehicle like this stack up?

What do you think?

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

Followup – How Charity Could Help Spread Innovation

Leave a reply
A good example of a charity investing in technologies that could lead to a better society is the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and their $22 Million investment in a company called FoldRx. Check out this article in the Boston Globe.

The article talks about how this investment could be a good example of how charity and private enterprise may better be able to collaborate together to undertake development efforts that will help society at large, but may not make sense on paper for bottom-line oriented investors. In this case the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation investment will serve to attract other investments that ultimately will allow for full funding of a research team that might not otherwise exist.

This is but one example of the type of venture philanthropy and social venture capital solutions that are possible when donors, charities, and philanthropists think in new and different ways, innovative ways.

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

How Charity could help spread Innovation

1 Reply

Every once in a while innovations come along that offer profitable opportunities for the inventors and business minds that turn them into innovations, but offer even greater possibilities for humanity if widely adopted. I read an article in Fast Company recently that struck me as one of those opportunities. It profiles a mechanic name Jonathan Goodwin and his fuel efficiency exploits.

Traditionally, a potentially market transforming technology will use a skimming price strategy and come into the marketplace priced high and gradually reach lower price points as volume builds and development costs are recouped. This is fine with something like the iPhone or high definition television, but it strikes me that on the other hand there is a loss to society with this price strategy with certain innovations. This includes things like life-saving drugs (AIDS, Cancer, etc.), but also other technologies like Mr. Goodwin’s innovation in internal combustion engine design. The article mentions a $5,000 device he co-developed that sells through SAE Energy that can, in general, yield a 100% increase in fuel economy while simultaneously producing 80% fewer emissions.

In general, Mr. Goodwin’s engineering feats can double and possibly quadruple the fuel efficiency of vehicles by replacing their gasoline engine with a high efficiency diesel engines, introducing hydrogen into the combustion process, and marrying the engine to a hybrid propulsion system using regenerative braking and batteries. Many examples are given in the article, from creating a 18mpg H1 Hummer (it used to get 9mpg) to a 100mpg Lincoln Continental.

Obviously if X number of people spend the $5,000 for the diesel engine modification and get their payback in one to two years, that is a great benefit to society. But, if a charity like the Sierra Club or even Bill Gates bought the rights to this innovation and worked with an overseas manufacturer to drive the costs of production lower and produced then in mass quantities at a sustaining profit instead of an enriching profit, how low could they be sold for? $3,000? $500? $100?

Social capitalism is an incredibly powerful opportunity for right-minded charities. If a charity did grab onto this and focused on cutting production costs as a way to increase access instead of increasing profits, they could still profitably produce the technology (providing resources to sustain the effort and possibly to fund other efforts) and their success would increase the pressure on the Big Three to take action and possibly could open up a licensing revenue stream if the technology was incorporated into new vehicles as well.

The public relations for a charity taking on such a challenge and approach would be substantial. In addition to delivering on their mission in a tangible way, donations to a charity engineering such a feat would skyrocket. This is a man on the moon kind of opportunity for a charity or philanthropist. Who has the vision and the gusto to grab this bull by the horns and drive it forward?

In the United States, diesel engines predominantly reside in trucks and buses, not automobiles. The article mentions that his company, SAE Energy, is in negotiations with DHL on an 800-vehicle dual-fuel conversion that could get them a 70-cent a gallon offset and reduce their fuel costs by 50%. If we as a society were to take that a step further, what would the impact on society be if instead Mr. Goodwin was recruited to help convert all buses (and possibly trucks) via conversion subsidies to be paid for with an increase in the national gas tax (no matter how big)?

Really, it would be in the interests of national security to do such a thing. There would also be a secondary benefit of such a strategy – public transit ridership would increase as a result of the gas tax increase and fuel consumption would decrease (along with the number of cars on the road). Our nation would be much more secure if we cut our fuel consumption for transportation in half, especially if at the same time the percentage being supplied by home grown Biodiesel and Ethanol went up. And if we get reductions in emissions at the same time? What are we waiting for?

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

How Small is Too Small?

Leave a reply
When it comes to a hotel room, how small is too small. There are several new entrants into the hotel market that are promising to shrink not only the price of a room, but the size of it as well. At first it sounds a lot like New York’s tiny hotel rooms, but the comparison stops there because those digs have sky high prices.

In contrast, easyHotel offers hotel rooms in central London from 25gbp.

Another recent creation from Philips and CitizenM utilizes pre-fabricated modules that only require four cables to be connected to have the room up and running.

Small rooms aren’t so bad if the prices are small, and looking at photos they don’t look like they are quite as small as Tokyo’s pod hotels.

Would you stay in one of these new small hotel rooms if the price was right?

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

Most Successful Loser in History

Leave a reply
I came across an interesting branding article on a BusinessWeek blog the other day about Al Gore, and I have to say one thing about Al Gore:

Has there ever been a more successful loser in history?

Al Gore lost or “lost” the 2000 Presidential election (depending on who you’re talking to), and since then has gone on to amass a fortune of over $100 million in the business world and win a Nobel Peace Prize. He has created a personal brand so strong that some say that he could waltz into the Democratic primaries at the last minute, win the nomination, and possibly even the White House.

No matter what your party affiliation, you have to admit that Al Gore’s turnaround of his personal brand is phenomenal. For most presidential candidates, the loss of an election usually spells the end of their political career, but Al Gore has risen from the ashes. Which brings me back to my original question:

Has there ever been a more successful loser in history?

What do you think?

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

Followup: Innovation Loves the Early Adopter

Leave a reply
Best Buy announced today that it has exited the analog TV business. Of course, this makes it easier for them to promote that all televisions purchased in their store will work in the all-digital future, but buried in the press release was a statement about the availabilty of converter boxes.

Those choosing to be in the late majority and laggard parts of the digital television market will be able to get up to two coupons per household that will allow them to purchase analog-to-digital conversion boxes for the outrageous sum of $40/each.

Of course I am kidding…

$40 is a lot cheaper than buying a new television, and may serve to keep some analog tube televisions out of the landfill.

It might not be a bad business to snap up outdated big screen analog televisions (27″ and up) at bargain prices on craigslist and then package them up with a converter box and re-sell them back on craigslist as a digital big screen television. Do you think there is a market out there?

Will you choose to go for a new television in February 2009 or opt for the $40 converter box?

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

Innovation Loves the Early Adopter

Leave a reply

Where would our technology industries be without the early adopters?

Our technology industries thrive on those people and companies who are willing to pay high prices for the latest in entertainment technology or business solutions. Personally, I don’t have the time to beta test new technologies, either as public betas or as newly released products, so I am very happy that the early adopters are so eager and ready to do so.

Because it interests me and because it is part of my job to identify where we are headed, I stay up on the latest technology; but, when it comes to parting with my hard-earned cash, there has to be a rational reason to do so.

Case in point, digital television. Starting in 2009, all television signals will be digital, so there is this big push in the marketplace to sell people hi-definition digital-capable televisions. At the same time there is a standards war underway in the Digital Video Disc marketplace between Sony and Toshiba for control of the next generation movie distribution platform. Sony has the lead, and whoever is ahead in the market share race after this winter holiday selling season, will be the victor (this is likely to be Sony).

So, my television is going to be obsolete soon, along with my DVD player. My innovation side is happy about this, while the rational side of me is going to hold out until the very last moment in order to get more for less. I’ll be very interested to see what I can get in two years for how little. I just hope that some steadfast entrepreneurs figure out a profitable way to gather a significant portion of the old tube televisions being replaced and ship them to other countries instead of the landfill.

What do you think? Have you already justified the purchase of a digital television to yourself (or significant other) or do you refuse to throw out a perfectly good television?

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

Innovation at the Bottom

Leave a reply

Came across an article on a BusinessWeek blog talking about the One Laptop Per Child project announcing their plan to offer a line of accessories.

The article talks about a $10 DVD Player and a $100 Projector, and how they might be a boon to entrepreneurs in developing countries when paired with the low cost XO laptop.

Innovation at the bottom may lift some enterprising individuals up to a higher standard living in developing countries, but things like a $100 projector could be a boon for entrepreneurs in this country too. Many enterprising entrepreneurs trying to bootstrap their companies here in the United States might find them an attractive alternative to the $800 price for an average projector here. A $100 projector might allow a dislocated U.S. worker trying to pitch their way out of a dead-end low-wage job to now go into important pitches looking just as professional as the big guys.

These tools will undoubtedly have a big impact in developing countries, but what might the impact of these low price tools be in the developed world?

Might innovation at the top be a side effect to the goal of providing one laptop per child?

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

Learning Innovations from Microsoft

Leave a reply

Want to read up on the latest technologies or innovative business thinking?

If you’re committed to continuous learning to maintain your edge in your career, then no doubt you are frequently making trips to Borders or Barnes & Noble, or perhaps online to Amazon to purchase the latest business, technology, or self improvement books. If you are really green and want to save a tree or two, maybe you even go to your local public library.

Many companies say they are committed to employee learning, some even send employees to training courses or conduct internal training classes, but Microsoft takes employee education one step further. They’ve built up their own library at their Redmond, WA campus headquarters that facilitates the acquisition and lending of the latest business and technology titles.

Even vendors can check out a book like The Strategy Paradox by Michael Raynor for three weeks. Audio books on CD, no problem. E-books? The Microsoft library has those too, along with access to online research sources.

If an employee or vendor doesn’t return something their boss gets charged, so that keeps people honest and the library stocked.

Why is this so innovative?

Innovation sometimes requires a commitment that few others are willing to make. How many companies are willing to bear the cost of running their own library?

But yet how many companies constantly complain about the shortage of qualified technology workers?

Making the resources easily available to employees to increase their body of knowledge not only contributes to increased job satisfaction, but also to increased productivity. Making the library available to vendors working on the Microsoft business as well is where one of the key strategic innovations plays out. What a concept!

Microsoft makes use of a large number of contractors and consultants to drive their business and by opening the library to these resources, they increase the return on investment in non-employee resources as well.

What is your company doing to improve productivity and success from supporting continuous learning?

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