Category Archives: Innovation

How to Learn Fast — and Kill Weak Bets Early

The Experiment Canvas™: Five Gravity-Control Innovation Experiments Visualized

How to Learn Fast — and Kill Weak Bets Early

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


What Is The Experiment Canvas™? (Short Answer)

The Experiment Canvas™ is a one-page innovation tool for structuring experiments that prove or disprove the feasibility, viability, and desirability of a potential innovation — before you burn capital on the wrong bet. It forces a clear hypothesis, helpers, resources, risks, assumptions, barriers, a three-phase experiment plan (setup → execution → wrap-up), and learning metrics that can falsify the idea.

Below: why the canvas accelerates innovation speed and success rates — and five filled examples for a hypothetical gravity control appliance, showing how a radical idea can be broken into sequenced experiments that cull likely failures early.

Why Innovators Need to Instrument for Learning — Not Hope

Most innovation waste is not bad imagination. It is unfalsified imagination: teams fund prototypes, labs, and roadmaps without a written hypothesis, kill criteria, or a learning metric anyone would defend in a budget meeting. Activity photographs well. Learning does not — unless you design for it.

I created The Experiment Canvas™ as part of the Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™ to help teams instrument for learning fast in iterative new product or service development. The canvas makes the experiment visual and collaborative — so alignment, accountability, and outcomes improve together. Specs can follow. Hope should not lead.

Used well, the canvas helps you:

  • Accelerate speed — by sequencing the questions that matter (physics before scale; safety before market theater; cost before Series B fantasy).
  • Raise odds of success — by naming helpers, resources, assumptions, and barriers before the first dollar of build.
  • Cull likely failures early — with fail-fast gates and learning metrics that can say “no” while the bet is still cheap.

How The Experiment Canvas™ Structures a Bet

Each canvas asks the same disciplined questions, in roughly this flow:

Zone What it forces
Hypothesis The question, feasibility/viability/desirability angles, fatal flaws, adoption blockers
Who can help / resources / risks Real people, real tools, real downside — not a slide of optimism
Phases 1–3 Setup, execution, wrap-up with evidence, insight, and next gate
Assumptions & barriers What must be true — and what can stop you
Learning metrics Three measures that can falsify the bet

To show how this works on something intentionally extreme, I recently built five Experiment Canvas examples (CLICK THEM to get the big version) for a hypothetical gravity control appliance. The point is not sci-fi cosplay. The point is method: even a moonshot becomes manageable when you break it into experiments that can fail honestly.

Example 1 — Physics Feasibility: Is There Any Measurable Effect?

Core hypothesis: Can we create >0.1% weight reduction on a 1kg mass — or is there any measurable effect at all?

This first canvas attacks the fatal question: is there a signal, or are we chasing EMI / magnetic tricks and reputational risk? Helpers include a chief scientist, a gravimetry lab, metrology, and an external skeptic reviewer. Learning metrics demand delta-G, signal-to-noise (>3 sigma), and repeatability. Next gate: if yes → energy test; if no → pivot or kill.

The Experiment Canvas example 1 — physics feasibility for a gravity control appliance testing measurable weight reduction
Example 1 — Physics feasibility: measurable effect, SNR, and repeatability before any product story.

Example 2 — Energy Efficiency: Is the Cost Per Newton Survivable?

Core hypothesis: Can we achieve >1 Newton of lift per kW — and modulate ±2% for 60 seconds — without an energy cost that makes the product impossible?

Prerequisite: Example 1 success. This canvas puts power electronics, thermal management, and fail-fast gates on the page (>5 kW/N kills the path). Metrics: watts per Newton, modulation accuracy, thermal stability. Insight: is the curve linear — or a cliff? Soft landings for radical tech start with honesty about energy economics.

The Experiment Canvas example 2 — energy efficiency and modulation for a gravity control appliance
Example 2 — Energy efficiency: cost per Newton, modulation, and thermal limits with a fail-fast gate.

Example 3 — Safety Envelope: Is Exposure Safe Enough to Sell?

Core hypothesis: Is 8-hour exposure at 0.5G at 1 meter safe — for cells, electronics, and humans?

Prerequisite: a stable Example 2. Here feasibility, desirability, and viability collide: bio impact, EMC, nausea, regulatory classification, liability. Metrics include cell viability (>95% vs control), bit-error rate / EMC compliance, and human symptom reports. Next: define a safety manual and exclusion zone — or stop before market theater begins.

The Experiment Canvas example 3 — safety and exposure envelope for a gravity control appliance
Example 3 — Safety: biological, electronic, and human-factor metrics that define the operating envelope.

Example 4 — Market Desirability: Who Has Gravity Pain Worth Paying For?

Core hypothesis: Which segment has ~$10M gravity-related pain — and will they sign LOIs at real price points ($120k+ / $520k+), or is this cool tech nobody wants?

Prerequisite: safety envelope from Example 3. This is the desirability canvas — interviews, pain scores, willingness to pay, and traction via pilot LOIs. Done when you have enough contact evidence for a go or a clear no-go. Building without a segment that hurts is innovation theater with better physics.

The Experiment Canvas example 4 — market desirability, pain scores, and LOIs for a gravity control appliance
Example 4 — Market desirability: segment pain, willingness to pay, and LOI traction before beta spend.

Example 5 — Manufacturing Viability: Can We Build 10 Betas Under $50k BOM?

Core hypothesis: Can we build 10 beta units at under $50k bill of materials — with a real path through supply chain, yield, and compliance?

This viability canvas asks whether the existing supply chain works, whether FCC/OSHA/product safety is a path or a wall, and whether cost or yield kills margin. Fail fast if BOM exceeds $100k. Metrics: unit cost, manufacturability (yield and hours), compliance blockers. Next: if cost and path are clear → fund the next round; if not → redesign before you scale a fantasy.

The Experiment Canvas example 5 — manufacturing BOM, yield, and compliance for a gravity control appliance
Example 5 — Manufacturing viability: BOM, yield, and compliance path before you scale.

What These Five Canvases Teach About Speed and Success

Read the five examples in sequence and a pattern appears:

  1. Sequence the fatal questions. Physics before energy. Energy before safety. Safety before market. Market before manufacturing scale.
  2. Write the kill criteria in advance. Null result, >5 kW/N, unsafe exposure, no LOIs, BOM blowout — each canvas names how to stop.
  3. Make learning metrics falsifiable. Three metrics per canvas beat a hundred vanity KPIs.
  4. Surface helpers, risks, assumptions, and barriers. Innovation fails politically as often as it fails scientifically.
  5. Treat wrap-up as a decision, not a report. Evidence → insight → next gate. No cemetery of unfinished experiments.

You do not need a gravity appliance to use the method. You need a bet you are tempted to fund on enthusiasm alone — and the discipline to instrument learning before the money gets loud.

Download The Experiment Canvas™ and Run Your Next Bet

The Experiment Canvas™ is available as a free, premium 35″ × 56″ scalable PDF — suitable for wall-sized workshops, 11″ × 17″ (A3) printing, or as a background in Miro, Mural, Lucid, Microsoft Whiteboard, and similar tools. It is one of the optional components of the Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™.

Go download The Experiment Canvas™ here:
https://bradenkelley.com/product/experiment-canvas-35″-x-56″-poster-size/

Write the hypothesis. Name the metrics that can kill the bet. Run the experiment. Soft landings for innovation are designed — one falsifiable canvas at a time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is The Experiment Canvas™?

The Experiment Canvas™ is a free innovation tool by Braden Kelley for structuring experiments that test feasibility, viability, and desirability. It covers hypothesis, helpers, resources, risks, setup/execution/wrap-up phases, assumptions, barriers, and learning metrics.

How does The Experiment Canvas™ accelerate innovation?

It forces teams to write a falsifiable hypothesis, sequence fatal questions, name kill criteria and learning metrics, and decide next steps based on evidence — so weak bets die early and strong bets get clearer gates before capital scales.

What are feasibility, viability, and desirability in innovation experiments?

Feasibility asks whether it can work technically. Desirability asks whether humans want it enough to hire it. Viability asks whether it can be made, sold, and sustained economically and legally. The Experiment Canvas™ helps you instrument learning across all three.

Where can I download The Experiment Canvas™?

Download the free 35″ × 56″ poster-size PDF from Braden Kelley’s product page: https://bradenkelley.com/product/experiment-canvas-35″-x-56″-poster-size/

Why use a gravity control appliance as an Experiment Canvas example?

An intentionally extreme hypothetical shows the method under stress: physics, energy, safety, market, and manufacturing each get their own canvas with kill criteria. If the tool works for a moonshot-style idea, it works for the bets already on your roadmap.

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Cursor to clean up the article.

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

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of August 2026

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of August 2026Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are August’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. Time to Rethink Pitch Fests and Business Plan Competitions — by Arlen Meyers
  2. What If You Could Prove the Government is Ripping Us Off? — by Braden Kelley
  3. The Surprising Innovation History of the Bicycle — by John Bessant
  4. Dead Actors Society — by Art Inteligencia
  5. Amazon Connect Combines Human Empathy with AI to Redefine Service — by Shep Hyken
  6. AI Will Create a More Human Future, Not a Less Human One — by Braden Kelley
  7. Managing Your Work Friends — by David Burkus
  8. Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit — by Braden Kelley
  9. Customer Experience Audit vs. Customer Satisfaction Survey — by Braden Kelley
  10. Case Study – Innovating Around a Disruption — by Jason Hauer

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in July that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

Build a Common Language of Innovation on your team

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last five years:

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

Future Vision XPRIZE: The Top 50 Optimistic Futures

$2.6M+ to Film a Future Worth Building — And Why You Should Vote Now

Future Vision XPRIZE: The Top 50 Optimistic Futures

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


Innovation Shows Up First as a Story

Innovation almost always shows up first as a story. Someone writes down the submarine, the moon landing, the video call — and decades later we build it. Culture dreams of a destination. Engineering finds the path.

That is the remit of the Future Vision XPRIZE: a global competition — with a $3.5M+ prize pool and a $2.6M+ grand prize path to turn a short vision into a feature film — asking creators to show an optimistic, abundant, technology-enabled future worth wanting. Not a utopia without stakes. Not dystopia as the only imagination we fund. A future where humanity faces real danger and still figures something out — or at least believes it can.

The assignment was clear: a trailer of up to three minutes, plus a treatment of up to twelve pages, depicting a compelling hopeful future. Tools were wide open — traditional filmmaking, animation, AI, hybrids. The spirit was Star Trek’s deeper bet: that humanity can evolve intellectually, ethically, and socially toward greater understanding, possibility, and purpose. Judges for the competition include voices such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Neal Stephenson, Mira Lane, and Rod Roddenberry. Finals land live at Moonshots LIVE in Los Angeles on September 25, 2026.

Why This Competition Matters Beyond the Prize

Incentive competitions are how XPRIZE has long pulled breakthroughs into the open. Future Vision flips the lens: the breakthrough here is collective imagination. Cautionary tales still matter — they help us navigate risk. But builders also need a north star. Soft landings for technology are designed. Soft landings for culture start with stories that make a better Tuesday feel real enough to pursue.

That is why this prize can inspire more than filmmakers and futurists. When the public watches fifty short visions of progress — climate and cities, longevity and memory, oceans and robotics, first contact and consciousness — people are not only entertained. They are rehearsing what “good” might look like. They are practicing hope with craft. Innovators get a richer brief than a white paper. Citizens get permission to want a future that is not only less bad, but more human.

Key Themes Across the Top 50

From more than 2,500 submissions, Range, XPRIZE, and Google selected fifty official films. Browse them and a pattern emerges — not a single prescribed future, but a cluster of human-centered themes:

  • Connection and consciousness — how we stay human to each other when tools get intimate with mind and dream.
  • Memory, biotech, and longevity — what we inherit, repair, and refuse to treat as disposable.
  • Nature, climate, oceans, and energy — technology solving real planetary constraints, not escaping them in costume.
  • AI, robotics, and cities — intelligence and infrastructure as partners in thriving, not only engines of extraction.
  • Space and first contact — exploration as shared purpose, not only conquest theater.

The competition’s own brief says it well: technology solving problems, humanity thriving (not merely surviving), a future worth building, and stories that move people emotionally. The Top 50 are the proof that creators worldwide answered that brief with ambition.

Trailers Beat Paper Scripts — And AI Changed Who Can Compete

For decades, “vision” in innovation and entertainment often traveled as a PDF: treatments, decks, and scripts that only a small room could feel. A trailer is different. In three minutes you either earn belief or you do not. You show the stakes, the texture, the emotional residue. Creative teams get to demonstrate their thinking — world, tone, character, craft — over and above the traditional paper scripts that usually get circulated and politely ignored.

AI did not invent storytelling. It did change the cost of a compelling, professional-looking trailer. Small teams can now prototype cinematic language that once required budgets only studios could touch. That is not a guarantee of soul — fluency without contact is still decoration — but it is a genuine opening. More than 2,500 submissions is not a marketing slogan. It is evidence that the barrier to showing a future dropped, and the world answered.

Used well, AI becomes a soft landing for creation: glue and production friction absorbed so human judgment, taste, and meaning stay in the frame. Used poorly, it becomes dystopia cosplay at higher RPM. The Future Vision XPRIZE rewards the former — visions with craft and hope that still feel earned.

Pairwise Voting Is Open on the 50 Finalists

Right now the public gets a real job. The SPECS Audience Choice Award puts $100,000 behind crowd favorites — $50K for first, $30K for second, $10K for third, and $5K each for fourth and fifth — decided entirely by vote. Crowdvoting is powered in partnership with SIV.org, and the experience is built as a simple, human question: Which future do you prefer?

That pairwise framing matters. You are not ranking fifty titles in the abstract. You are choosing between living visions — side by side — the way culture actually chooses what it wants more of. Watch. Compare. Vote. On September 25, the Top 5 also screen live in Los Angeles, with the grand prize path aimed at producing the winning feature with Range Media Partners and a $2.6M+ package ($100K cash for screenplay development plus $2.5M equity investment toward production), alongside runners-up and Top 10 prizes across the wider pool.

How to Vote — and a Preview of My Top 3

You can watch the Top 50 and cast your Audience Choice votes at https://vote.futurevisionxprize.com/. It takes about a minute to start — and every pairwise choice is a small act of futurology: telling the culture which north stars deserve oxygen.

Here is a preview of my Top 3 from the fifty. These are not the only films worth your time — watch widely — but they are the three I keep returning to:

1. PROVENANCE — Chris Winterton

Themes: Memory · Biotech · Connection. In 2160, ancestral memory is inherited through craft, and a young ceramicist starts inheriting the one memory she cannot hold. Human-centered sci-fi at its best: technology intimate with identity, dignity still in the room.

Watch PROVENANCE on YouTube · Official selection page

2. Somewhere Past Midnight — Felix Roumagnac

Themes: Consciousness · Connection. Two teenagers meet inside on-demand lucid dreams and go looking for the boundless world childhood promised. A reminder that optimistic futures are not only about machines — they are about what we still long for when the tools get powerful.

Watch Somewhere Past Midnight on YouTube · Official selection page

3. Rock Rider — Christof Vonbank

Themes: Space · First Contact. A space trucker hauling a town-sized asteroid to an Earth he’s never touched finds a stowaway carrying proof we were never alone. Exploration with grit, wonder, and a future that still has room for surprise.

Watch Rock Rider on YouTube · Official selection page

Then go vote for the futures you prefer: https://vote.futurevisionxprize.com/. Learn more about the competition at futurevisionxprize.com.

Stories shape what we fund, what we build, and what we forgive ourselves for wanting. Future Vision XPRIZE is a rare chance to put public imagination on a scoreboard that still has money, stages, and makers attached. Watch the fifty. Prefer a future on purpose. Soft landings for humanity start with north stars we can feel.

I’m curious! Please SHARE YOUR TOP 3 in the comments.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Future Vision XPRIZE?

Future Vision XPRIZE is a global sci-fi film competition from XPRIZE (with partners including Google and Range) inviting creators to submit up to three-minute trailers of optimistic, abundant futures. The prize pool is $3.5M+, with a $2.6M+ grand prize path to develop the winning vision into a feature film.

How do you vote in the Future Vision XPRIZE Audience Choice Award?

Go to https://vote.futurevisionxprize.com/ and compare finalist visions in a pairwise “Which future do you prefer?” experience. The SPECS Audience Choice Award distributes $100,000 based entirely on public voting. You can also browse all 50 official selections at https://fvxp.moonshots.com/.

How many submissions did Future Vision XPRIZE receive?

More than 2,500 films were entered worldwide. Fifty were selected as official finalists for public voting and the path toward live finals in Los Angeles on September 25, 2026.

What themes appear in Future Vision XPRIZE finalists?

Finalist themes span AI, biotech, cities, connection, consciousness, energy, first contact, longevity, memory, nature and climate, oceans, robotics, and space — unified by the remit of technology solving problems and humanity thriving in a future worth building.

Can AI be used to create a Future Vision XPRIZE trailer?

Yes. Competition guidelines allowed any production tools — traditional filming, animation, AI, or hybrids. AI lowered the barrier to professional-looking trailers and helped enable the scale of 2,500+ submissions, while human craft and hopeful storytelling remain what the remits reward.

Image Credits: Cursor

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Cursor to clean up the article.

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

The Surprising Innovation History of the Bicycle

Pedal Power

The Surprising Innovation History of the Bicycle

GUEST POST from John Bessant

Bicycles are big business. It’s hard to get an exact figure but estimates suggest there are around 2 billion bikes in the world today. And of course they exist in all sorts of shapes and sizes — town bikes, racing bikes, mountain bikes, foldable bikes, electric bikes and many more besides. They’re available in cutting-edge high tech versions but their underlying design is very simple. They’re very green — once built they can be repaired and resurrected, some live for ages, handed on from generation to generation.

But bicycles weren’t always around and perhaps it’s worth reflecting a little more on their history, not least because it can teach us some useful lessons about innovation. In particular how (or not) to manage it for impact and scale.

In the earliest days — around 3500 BC — the Mesopotamians used them to make pottery which seems to be the first application of this breakthrough idea. The problem with using them for transport wasn’t so much the wheel as finding an axle strong enough to enable the wheels to work. It took another 300 years before new materials and better carpentry techniques led to their being fixed to chariots and ushering in the era of mobile warfare. But once the wheels started rolling they were attached to an increasing variety of military and domestic vehicles, so it was only going to be a matter of time before someone came up with the idea of using them to enable personal transportation.

Well quite a lot of time, actually. Although there’s probably a sketch for something resembling a bike in Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks or in some other inventor’s imagination, the reality is that it wasn’t until the early 19 century that the vehicle that we know and love began to see the light of day. That shouldn’t surprise us — innovation depends on a mixture of needs and means and the idea of personal transportation never mind the technologies to enable it was not a particularly high priority. People didn’t travel far — and if they did Nature had already supplied a robust solution in the form of horses (or mules, camels and other alternatives).

The average human being can walk at around 5 km per hour so covering any distance is going to take time and effort. Enter Baron von Drais, a minor aristocrat in Germany who in 1817 came up with the ‘Laufmaschine’ — walking machine — otherwise known as the Draisienne. He was already an experienced engineer and inventor, having come up with several working prototypes for devices like a piano music recording system, a periscope, and a typewriter. (All ideas which turned out, much later, to have considerable significance but not in the form he developed them). And he had a passion for horseless transportation.

This wasn’t some idle curiosity or pet project. Times were tough in the years of the Napoleonic wars and grain prices were high, something not helped by the failure of harvests in 1816. This was the so-called ‘year without a summer’ when the fallout (literally) from a volcanic eruption in south east Asia blotted out the sun. People died of starvation — and horses had an even harder time of it, either starving themselves or else used for food. The possibilities of their being used for transportation shrank faster than the animals themselves.

Drais was also aware of new technologies and materials which he could make use of and he developed a working prototype of his machine on which he could cover the kilometres around his home town of Karlsruhe. He experimented with variations including a four wheeled passenger carriage powered by an (unlucky) servant whose job was to pedal on planks connected to the wheels. But his breakthrough idea was a two-wheeler — the Draisienne. This did away with pedals; instead the rider sat and scooted along the ground with his feet — a kind of adult version of the child’s hobby-horse.

There was nothing childish about the impact this had on moving around the place though. On 12 June 1817, a crowd gathered along the best road in Mannheim, Germany to watch him climb aboard and set out for the Schwetzinger Relaishaus (a coaching inn, located in nearby Rheinau. Less than an hour later, he was back, having completed the 13km round trip in a quarter of the time it would take to walk.

He was a man of vision — and saw the potential for what he had built. By October 1817, he had produced 3-page brochure of laufmaschine designs which pictured possible applications (such as for military couriers or in the postal service) as well as general and leisure transport. He proposed different models with both 2 and 4 wheels and even a tandem and potential customers could choose between standard machiens or customised version. The French version of the brochure, published a year later, included accessories such as lamps, an umbrella and even a sail to help with extra momentum on windy days.

Drais’s laufmaschine was pretty heavy by today’s standards, weighing in at 22kg, made mostly of wood but with hoops of iron nailed to the wheels to function as tyres. This design had an unfortunate side-effect because it made any journey on the fairly primitive roads of the time somewhat less than comfortable. At least the machine was blessed with a brake on the rear wheel; perhaps more important were some of the technologies Drais put to use in his design, like the brass bushes inside the wheel bearings (which enabled the wheels to turn freely) and a trailer to the front wheel which helped the rider maintain balance.

Drais had the vision to see the possibilities in his machine — but he didn’t really have a business model to help him create and capture value from it. Although he staged a number of impressive demonstrations around Europe the reception was mixed and once the novelty wore off the market retreated to being one for hobbyists and pleasure seekers. Riding rinks (where customers could rent a machine for an hour or so) appeared in the parks of various European cities but the mainstream dream of providing personal transportation faded. It wasn’t helped by the appalling state of the roads at the time; without any form of shock absorbers the seat, despite being well-padded, was not a comfortable place to spend much of the day.

‘All’s fair in love and war’ is a principle which often also seems to extend to innovation. The pattern is one of imitation and the first mover is not always the one who can gain advantage, especially if they have inadequate protection for their intellectual property. Drais had tried to patent his idea but it only applied locally, a loophole quickly spotted and exploited by an Englishman, Denis Johnson. He’d seen the early demonstrations and guessed at the significant opportunity such machines might offer. So he set about patenting the idea in England and then building in more systematic fashion a business model around which it might be exploited.

Johnson was a coachmaker so he quickly worked out how to build the machines; what he had to do was create and grow the market. He advertised, offered demonstration machines, organised racing competitions and even established two riding schools where people could learn the skills involved. He adapted the product so that his ‘pedestrian curricle’ had a Ladies Walking Machine variant with a lower saddle such that women could mount the machine decorously.

He was particularly successful in attracting the attention of the young men of the time. This was the era of Beau Brummel and the London Dandies and they enthusiastically took up the idea, adding to it all sorts of fashion accessories — boots, gloves, etc — without which the daredevil owner would not be seen about town. Its popularity amongst this group was heightened by the inherently unsafe nature of something ridden about narrow streets at (relatively) high speed which offered thrills (and accidents) a-plenty until an increasing number of city authorities began banning the machine

It was an expensive hobby. Retailing for around £10 (about £750) it carried additional running costs. Riders wore out their expensive leather boots surprisingly rapidly, and the imposition of fines of £2 (£150 today) for riding on the pavement added to the burden. The fashion for draisiennes began to fade but the real reason for their failure to reach a wider market was down to much simpler economics. By 1820, the price of oats had come back down to pre-1815 levels, and horses were readily available to those who could afford them.

Innovation isn’t just a gleam in the eye, a flash of insight and then instant creation. It’s a lot of hard work, experimentation and improvisation to bring that dream to reality. But even when the first fruits are there there’s still plenty of room for improvement. As Johnson showed, there’s plenty of scope for doing things better, sorting out the bugs and wrinkles, continuously improving on the design. It’s a pattern of restless experimentation, pushing the frontiers of what might be possible. Metalworking technology in particular was improving such that machines could be made strong and (relatively) light, displacing wood as the only means of construction. People explored using different numbers of wheels — two, three, four, more even — opening up the possibilities of carrying multiple passengers.

But innovation is also about sudden leaps, of someone else very often picking up the baton and giving the wheel an extra hard push that sends it off in a new direction. Sometimes this is about timing — a technology which wasn’t available earlier on suddenly appears . or a market which didn’t exist begins to grow to the point where there is a demand for the innovation, pulling it in new refreshed directions. Whatever, this pattern of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ is at the heart of most innovation stories. And in the case of the bicycle it certainly was.

If you are going to have a mysterious legend to weave about the next phase of bicycle innovation where better to do it than Scotland? Land of towering mountains, shady glens, deep lochs and plenty of rain to fill them. Shrouded in mists and secrecy — and home, amongst others to a blacksmith named Kirkpatrick McMillan.

Macmillan completed construction of a pedal driven bicycle of wood in 1839, one which also included iron-rimmed wooden wheels, a steerable wheel in the front and a larger wheel in the rear which was connected to pedals via connecting rods. Various accounts tell of his travelling about the roads near Kier and regularly making the journey to the town of Dumfries (14 miles away) in less than an hour.

He was a modest man and his claim to innovation fame doesn’t rest on patents so much as PR, particularly the research of his relative James Johnston in the 1890s. Johnston wanted “to prove that to my native country of Dumfries belongs the honour of being the birthplace of the invention of the bicycle”. He might have been a little creative with his reworking of history, suggesting for example that Macmillan was the gentleman in question in a Glasgow newspaper report in 1842 of an accident in which an anonymous “gentleman from Dumfries-shire… bestride a velocipede… of ingenious design” knocked over a pedestrian in the Gorbals and was fined five British shillings”.

A criminal record is perhaps not the strongest piece of intellectual property protection and a more robust claim to be the pedal innovator lies with the French. Specifically a young blacksmith and machinist from the town of Nancy called Pierre Lallement. He developed his ideas in 1863 and showed them off publicly during the next year; moved to the USA in 1865 and in the following year registered US Patent number 59915 for his version of the ‘velocipede’.

So most people give the pedal crown — and with it the title of inventor of the modern bicycle — to Lallement. But he was not alone.

In the early 1860s Pierre Michaux (yet another blacksmith) had a successful business producing parts for the carriage trade and had diversified into making “vélocipède à pédales” on a small scale. Across Paris two brothers, Andre and Rene Olivier were students but also came from a wealthy family. This enabled them not only to be early adopters of the bicycle, (enjoying a memorable road trip in 1865 from Avignon to Paris which took them 8 days) but also to become the first entrepreneurs in the game. They saw the considerable potential in pedal cycles and teamed up with Michaux, brought in another friend George de la Boublise and in 1868 set up a partnership to make and sell them.

For a while France (and Paris with its smooth flat roads) became the focus of a market which grew in popularity on both sides of the Atlantic. But a combination of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 (which stopped French cyclists) and bad roads (whose boneshaking characteristics held back even the hardiest of north American users) meant that the centre of innovation gravity moved to Britain.

Pedal power depends on how much you can push — and cycle design next began to explore ways of maximising this. Two wheels of equal size aren’t particularly good in this equation; better is to have as long a stride as possible since the larger the wheel, the further you can go with one rotation of the pedals. So wheels became higher and higher, the only limit being the length of the rider’s legs. It’s an idea which is good for propulsion but not so good for steering or balance. And so bicycles became ever more exotic looking in their arrangements of wheels and sizes, not least giving birth to the familiar ‘penny farthing’ shape.

But although high wheelers experienced some market growth they weren’t really practical for the average man or woman on the street. Enter John Kemp Starley, an English inventor who came up with a winning idea for a “safety bicycle”, one which would appeal to a much bigger market. His first model was the “Ariel” launched in 1871 and although still featuring wheels of different sizes it was getting closer to a configuration which people would accept. Not least because he integrated many of the key features which people valued — improvements in stability, comfort, usability _especially steering), and all at a price they could afford.

Starley was a classic innovator and over the next fifteen years he developed an increasing range of machines, drawing in ideas and technologies from all over the place. Learning all the time with the market about what it actually wanted, not least through the experience of dissatisfied riders.

For example he sorted out the problem with the wheels. Early bikes had heavy wooden wheels with iron rims but in 1849 William Stanley had invented steel-wheel spider spokes. In 1868, Eugene Meyer in Paris developed an all-metal wheel that relied on the tension of wires rather than compression of heavy metal spokes to achieve structural integrity. Two years later, William Henry James Grout, a builder of velocipedes from Shadwell, London, patented spokes that had eyed nipples at the outer end. Starley drew these ideas together to create (and patent) the spoked wheel in 1874 which gave a much more comfortable ride because of its sprung nature and it also made bicycles much lighter.

In similar fashion he took other ideas and used them as ingredients in the innovation soup which was now coming nicely to the boil. Finally in 1885, Starley introduced the “Rover.” With its nearly equal-sized wheels, centre pivot steering and differential gears that operate with a chain drive, Starley’s “Rover” was the first highly practical iteration of the bicycle. Like Henry Ford with his Model T twenty years later he’d produced the bicycle for Everyman (and woman). It became the dominant design — and it’s pretty much the same shape as we’d recognise today.

Starley’s work kick-started the industry into its growth phase. His company grew and with it the product range, opening up cycling to a wide market in the ways Baron von Drais had dreamt about seventy years earlier. The safety bicycle completely displaced the high wheeler and by 1889 there were around 200,000 bicycles on the roads of Europe.

Ten years later over a million machines were being pedalled around the world. Innovation didn’t stop there — and with each new development the pace of growth accelerated. Pneumatic tyres made of rubber made for a smoother ride, chain drives meant the power came from the rear wheel leaving the front to steer and making cornering easier. The application of gears helped tame even the most stubborn of inclines and opened up the whole landscape to conquest by bicycle. And inventors began looking to provide alternatives to legs as the main power source, with a battery electric cycle appearing. And over in Germany Gottfried Daimler played around with hooking an internal combustion engine up to a cycle to create the motorbike…..

So it’s not entirely surprising that we now have 2 billion bicycles pedalling their way along roads and up and down the mountainsides of the world. There’s still plenty of scope for further innovation, for branching in new directions and picking up old ones — the e-scooter craze looks like a good candidate for becoming the next major shift, with not a few nods back in the direction of good old Baron von Drais. What’s clear , though, is that these innovations will only take hold and become widely adopted if we pay attention to working at the system level.

Successful scaling of innovation is all about wheels within wheels…

(A little song to close with….)

You can listen to a podcast of this story here

And watch a video version on my YouTube channel here

If you’d like more songs, stories and other resources on the innovation theme, check out my website here

And if you’d like to learn with me take a look at my online courses here

Originally published at https://johnbessant.substack.com on July 24, 2026.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Do Your Innovation Words Match Your Actions?

Do Your Innovation Words Match Your Actions?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Innovation isn’t a thing in itself. Companies need to meet their growth objectives and innovation is the word experts use to describe the practices and behaviors they think will maximize the likelihood of meeting those growth objectives. Innovation is a catchword phrase that has little to no meaning. Don’t ask about innovation, ask how to meet your business objectives. Don’t ask about best practices, ask how has your company been successful and how to build on that success. Don’t ask how the big companies have done it – you’re not them. And, the behaviors of the successful companies are the same behaviors of the unsuccessful companies. The business books suffer from selection bias. You can’t copy another company’s innovation approach. You’re not them. And your project is different and so is the context.

With innovation, the biggest waste of emotional energy is quest for (and arguments around) best practices. Because innovation is done in domains of high ambiguity, there can be no best practices. Your project has no similarity with your previous projects or the tightest case studies in the literature. There may be good practice or emergent practice, but there can be no best practice. When there is no uncertainty and no ambiguity, a project can use best practices. But, that’s not innovation. If best practices are a strong tenant of your innovation program, run away.

The front end of the innovation process is all about choosing projects. If you want to be more innovative, choose to work on different projects. It’s that simple. But, make no mistake, the principle may be simple the practice is not. Though there’s no acid test for innovation, here are three rules to get you started. (And if you pass these three tests, you’re on your way.)

  1. If you’ve done it before, it’s not innovation.
  2. If you know how it will turn out, it’s not innovation.
  3. If it doesn’t scare the hell out of you, it’s not innovation.

Once a project is selected, the next cataclysmic waste of time is the construction of a detailed project plan. With a well-defined project, a well-defined project plan is a reasonable request. But, for an innovation project with a high degree of ambiguity, a well-defined project plan is impossible. If your innovation leader demands a detailed project plan, it’s usually because they are used running to well-defined continuous improvement projects. If for your innovation projects you’re asked for a detailed project plan, run away.

With innovation projects, you can define step 1. And step 2? It depends. If step 1 works, modify step 2 based on the learning and try step 2. And if step 1 doesn’t work, reformulate step 1 and try again. Repeat this process until the project is complete. One step at a time until you’re done.

Innovation projects are unpredictable. If your innovation projects require hard completion dates, run away.

Innovation projects are all about learning and they are best defined and managed using Learning Objectives (LOs). Instead of step 1 and step 2, think LO1 and LO2. Though there’s little written about LOs, there’s not much to them. Here’s the taxonomy of a LO: We want to learn if [enter what you want to learn]. Innovation projects are nothing more than a series of interconnected LOs. LO2 may require the completion of LO1 or L1 and LO2 could be done in parallel, but that’s your call. Your project plan can be nothing more than a precedence diagram of the Learning Objectives. There’s no need for a detailed Gantt chart. If you’re asked for a detailed Gantt chart, you guessed it – run away.

The Learning Objective defines what you learn, how you want to learn, who will do the learning and when they want to do it. The best way to track LOs is with an Excel spreadsheet with one tab for each LO. For each LO tab, there’s a table that defines the actions, who will do them, what they’ll measure and when they plan to get the actions done. Since the tasks are tightly defined, it’s possible to define reasonable dates. But, since there can be a precedence to the LOs (LO2 depends on the successful completion of LO1), LO2 can be thought of a sequence of events that start when LO1 is completed. In that way, an innovation project can be defined with a single LO spreadsheet that defines the LOs, the tasks to achieve the LOs, who will do the tasks, how success will be determined and when the work will be done. If you want to learn how to do innovation, learn how to use Learning Objectives.

There are more element of innovation to discuss, for example how to define customer segments, how to identify the most important problems, how to create creative solutions, how to estimate financial value of a project and how to go to market. But, those are for another post.

Until then, why not choose a project that scares you, define a small set of Learning Objectives and get going?

Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Unleashing Your Innovation Potential

Unleashing Your Innovation Potential

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

It is not unusual, especially in the corporate world, to label someone who disrupts and challenges the status quo, or what others say, as argumentative and “oppositional”. According to Human Synergistics, the Oppositional Style, in their circumplex, when measured as a dominant leadership style, is summarized in their 360-degree Leadership Styles Inventory (LSI) by two items: “usually against things” and “opposes new ideas.” It labels the person, or leader as being aggressively defensive and causes them to disengage by avoiding engaging in any kind of conflict, dissent and disagreement. This inhibits and prevents them from unleashing their creative thinking and their innovation potential.

In my many years as a corporate trainer presenting high-performance cultures and transformational leadership programs, I learned to apply my imagination, curiosity and inquiry skills to be attentively present, listen deeply and ask generative questions. This helped me develop strategies to unleash a person’s innovation potential by encouraging and enabling thoughtful dissent and disagreement.  I learned to uncover and recognize a leader’s energy and positive intent behind many of the scary, argumentative, hostile, contrary, critical, and aggressive behaviors directed at me, especially in my years upfront as a female corporate trainer in many toxic organizational cultures.

I often found that they were compromised in some way by their personal and family needs and values, their assumptions and beliefs about themselves and their performance at work, poor physical and mental health, and/or a lack of emotional well-being. Any one of these factors made them self-protective, leading to either overt aggression toward others, passive avoidance of conflict, or an unconscious refusal to engage in thoughtful dissent and disagreement because they did not want to be perceived as hostile and argumentative.

All of these unconscious reactive responses inhibited them from unleashing their creative thinking and innovative potential. 

This blog explores the power of unleashing creative thinking and innovation potential through supporting people to thoughtfully dissent and disagree – by using conflict as a catalyst for better decision-making, problem-solving, and strengthened collaboration and innovation – not as a barrier.

Unconscious reactive responses

This manifests as a neurologically challenging reactive response, as people’s brains are wired to defend and protect them to ensure their survival. These defensive responses are composed of fight/flight/freeze/fawn reactions and arise when people face what their neurology (the limbic system) perceives as a threat to their security, safety, or survival.

These reactions stem from past experiences and traumas that are often stored in people’s somatic memories. They become neurologically wired and embedded in people’s habitual ways of being unless they are noticed, labelled, accepted, acknowledged and owned. Until there is a safe holding space for this to happen, it will be impossible to unleash their creative thinking and innovation potential.

Safe holding spaces

Once a safe holding space is established, an oppositional person can be carefully and empathetically challenged, disputed, deviated from, and redirected towards more self-regulated, resourceful, and emotionally healthy states and new approaches. This involves bravely engaging them in thoughtful dissent and disagreement, despite being encased in a toxic organizational culture. Its about building permission, safety and trust to encourage creative thinking that unleashes a persons innovation potential.

Fight-flight-freeze and fawn responses

The amygdala is designed to detect threats and trigger the fight-flight-freeze response to help people survive

  •  A fight response involves standing our ground when we feel threatened, driven by anger, fear, and anxiety.
  •  A flight response entails moving away from or avoiding a situation to reduce painful feelings.
  •  A freeze response involves shutting down, feeling numb, or experiencing paralysis to reduce painful feelings, resulting in immobility.
  • A fawn response involves appeasing and placating others or seeking approval while neglecting the need to feel safe.  

Role of smart conflict, thoughtful dissent and disagreement

This is particularly evident in political and organizational contexts, where people are suffering from change fatigue and overwork. As a result, they unconsciously disengage from their work, families, and daily lives through a flight-or-freeze response, driven by burnout, the pursuit of external validation (a fawn response), or frustration and anger (usually a fight response). A combination of any or all of these largely unconscious but fully present reactive responses creates toxic organizational cultures, in which leaders’ behaviors are either passively or aggressively defensive in their attempts to meet people’s core security, safety, and survival needs. Leaders avoid encouraging or engaging in thoughtful dissent and disagreement that mobilizes people’s creative and critical thinking and unleashes their innovation potential.

The constraints and challenges of the pandemic, coupled with threats to people’s stability and the desire for certainty, also led many people in organizations to fear that their needs for security, safety, and survival would not, and could not, be met. These fears unconsciously intensified people’s defensiveness and reactivity, leading to immobilization through passivity, helplessness, hopelessness, powerlessness, disengagement, and detachment. This indicates a lack of emotional intelligence, largely due to the absence of initial self-regulation and self-leadership strategies.  It is easier and sometimes safer to be a victim and blame others for any negative, pessimistic, or painful feelings of shame, guilt, and embarrassment, resulting from competing commitments, value violations, thought distortions, and emotional dissociation.

These emotionally overwhelming and cognitively overloading factors are also accepted inhibitors to unleashing a person’s innovative potential, especially when they are unable to engage in thoughtful dissent and disagreement under the influence of a toxic organizational culture.

Making the shift

To support people to effectively shift this way of being and safely unleash their creative thinking and innovation potential:

It is crucial to develop and apply the generative discovery skillset to welcome dissent and thoughtful disagreement:

  • Notice: by being aware and attentively present to what is happening to, and within the person, neurologically and physiologically, emotionally, cognitively and physically.
  • Disrupt: by being curious and safely asking open, explorative discovery questions, and by listening carefully to hear and notice what is really going on for them.
  • Dispute: by safely summarizing and challenging their assumptions, perceptions and perspectives, asking evocative and provocative questions that encourage contrary thinking, diversity of thought, differences and constructive disagreement.
  • Deviate: by safely summarizing and eliciting a mindset flip or an agility shift in the oppositional person, directing their creative energy towards constructive behaviors that deliver a positive outcome.

This enables people to redirect their emotional energy and move away from unresourceful internal thought patterns and distortions. It also encourages them to open their minds to thoughtful dissent and disagreement, allowing them to think differently and enter creative and innovative realms. 

This is impossible when toxic organizational cultures force people to hide behind conventional, rigid, and closed minds that won’t allow them to rock the boat and be, think and act differently by intentionally using conflict constructively by embracing dissent and thoughtful disagreement 

At the same time, it’s crucial to safely, empathically and compassionately evoke and provoke an opening of people’s hearts by purposefully and meaningfully aligning their needs and values, so that the change motivates them to change meaningfully and purposefully. This creates the safe holding space that allows them to let go of the need to be in control and be open-willed, unleashing their creative thinking and innovation potential to make the shift to the creative and innovative realms.

Empowering people and teams to redirect their emotional energy towards opening their minds to thoughtful dissent and disagreement allows them to handle hard conversations with constructive and creative intent.

Welcoming dissent and thoughtful disagreement involves daring yourself and others to be and think differently. Being able to think creatively maximize a person or a teams innovation potential, unleashes their human ingenuity in the age of AI, and mobilizes their collective intelligence to lead, manage, or implement constructive and sustainable change.

Leveraging constructive conflict, dissent and thoughtful disagreement unleashes people’s creative thinking and innovation potential and is a necessary part of enabling AI, digital transformation and innovation initiatives to succeed in uncertain and disruptive times.

Find out more about our work at ImagineNation™ and The Start-Up Game.™ Discover our collective learning products and tools that can be customized as playful bespoke corporate learning programs. Our blended and transformational change and learning programs provide a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem-focused, human-centric approach and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation and entrepreneurship. It will also upskill people and teams, developing their future fitness within your unique digital transformation and innovation initiatives. Please find out more about our products and tools.

Image Credit: Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of July 2026

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of July 2026Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are July’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. What Happens When AI Becomes Your Customer? — by Shep Hyken
  2. The Experience Economy 2.0 — by Braden Kelley
  3. How to Calculate the ROI of Customer Experience — by Braden Kelley
  4. Strategic Foresight: A Practitioner’s Guide to Thinking About the Future — by Braden Kelley
  5. Innovation or Not — InTruth — by Braden Kelley
  6. Innovation Framework Examples: 7 Real-World Cases That Show How They Work — by Braden Kelley
  7. The Personal AI Renaissance — by Braden Kelley
  8. Your 3 Phase AI Journey — by Geoffrey Moore
  9. Why So Much Bullshit? — by Greg Satell
  10. Creating an Innovation Edge — by John Bessant

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in June that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

Build a Common Language of Innovation on your team

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last five years:

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

Case Study – Innovating Around a Disruption

Škoda built a bike bell that beats noise-cancelling headphones

Case Study - Innovating Around a Disruption

GUEST POST from Jason Hauer

A near-miss on a London street became Škoda’s smartest marketing spend in years. The bigger idea: someone else’s AI has broken something in your category too, and fixing it might be your next growth play.

Ben Fraser was walking to work near Borough Market, headphones on, when a cyclist nearly hit him. The cyclist had been ringing his bell the whole way down the street. Fraser never heard a thing.

Fraser works at PHD Media, and the near-miss became a brief. Transport for London data showed bike-pedestrian collisions rose 24% in 2024, with cyclists set to outnumber car drivers in London for the first time this year. One quiet contributor: active noise cancellation. The bike bell had worked for a century. On a growing share of pedestrians, it simply stopped working, because an algorithm in their headphones was scrubbing it out of the air.

Škoda, the Czech carmaker owned by Volkswagen Group and one of Europe’s biggest auto brands, took the problem to acoustics researchers at the University of Salford. Testing turned up something useful: noise-cancelling algorithms struggle with a narrow band between 750 and 780 hertz. So Škoda built the DuoBell, a second resonator tuned to that gap, plus a hammer that strikes in an irregular rhythm the algorithms can’t predict. Fully mechanical. A piece of metal designed to beat software.

They tested it with a fleet of Deliveroo riders in London, people whose income depends on being heard in traffic. One rider said that with the bell, he finally had a voice in the streets. The riders wanted to keep them.

Pedestrians in noise-cancelling headphones gained up to five extra seconds of reaction time and up to 22 metres of additional distance. Roughly four times the cut-through of a standard bell. Škoda published the underlying research as an open-source white paper, and the work took Silver in Creative Data at Cannes in June. One case-study breakdown projects €79 million in vehicle sales connected to the project, which fits how the company sees it. Škoda started life as a bicycle maker in 1895 and still sponsors the Tour de France. The fix sits inside a hundred-year-old brand truth.

Nobody at the headphone companies set out to make cyclists invisible. Noise cancellation was a good product decision that quietly broke a safety system in a completely different category, and the breakage sat unowned for years while collisions climbed. That pattern is everywhere now. Every AI deployment of the last three years created some downstream effect in somebody else’s business.

Somebody is absorbing that cost right now, and no line item owns it.

Look at your own category through that lens. A century-old bell stopped working because ears started running software. Every signal your company sends was built the same way, for a human on the receiving end, and a machine now sits between you and that person. Your buyer’s first impression of you is written by a model you’ve never briefed. Everything you send after that runs through software tuned by companies with no stake in whether you’re heard. Somewhere in that chain, something that worked in your category for decades is being scrubbed out of the air, and the loss surfaces in a metric you’ve been explaining some other way. The collision numbers sat in Transport for London’s data before anyone thought to blame headphones. Your version of that number already exists. It’s in a dashboard right now, filed under something else.

Škoda’s move was to treat the breakage as a market. Find the gap, spend the budget on fixing it, and let the fix carry the brand. The bell exists because someone measured a frequency nobody had bothered to look for.

Skoda DuoBell statistics

WHAT TO DO THIS WEEK

The first conversation moved. Your customer now asks a model before they ask you, whether that’s a buyer building a shortlist or a client second-guessing your advice. This week, put your customers’ most common questions to the major models, worded the way they’d word them. What comes back is your new first impression.

The unfiltered channels are still open. Every digital signal you send now clears someone else’s software before a human sees it. Nothing stands between a room and the people in it. Škoda answered an algorithm with a piece of metal; your equivalent might be a dinner, or a printed report that lives on a desk for a month. Pick the one message this quarter that can’t survive being flattened and spend real money delivering it by hand.

The next breakage is already in somebody’s data. The collision numbers sat in Transport for London’s files before anyone blamed headphones. Spend an hour with your team on two questions. What have our own AI deployments broken for the people downstream, the customer who needed a person, the partner whose emails our triage now buries? And what’s degrading in our category that nobody has claimed yet? One of those answers is a liability you can still price before a competitor does. The other is a bell nobody has built.

Whatever you find, take it all the way to metal. Škoda could have stopped at the white paper. The bell is the reason you’re reading about them.

A century-old bell needed one new frequency to work again. Your category has a gap like that somewhere.

What’s quietly stopped working in your category?

Image credit: Jason Hauer

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Category Creation

Category Creation

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

Category creation is a critical success factor for start-ups bringing to market a disruptive innovation that calls for a new ecosystem, to support a new class of use cases, funded by a new budget line item. If the category does not form, the start-ups have no place to hang their hat. They can acquire early adopter customers via a bespoke project approach, but they cannot scale any further without help from the rest of the marketplace.

Similarly, established enterprises in mature categories also need to find new venues for growth if they are to break free from their value-investor-set market caps and create net new shareholder value. Whether through acquisition or in-house innovation, they, too, can have the challenge of category creation. So, in both cases, companies need to reengineer the marketplace in order to realize their ambitions. The question is, what would make the marketplace want to lean in?

Marketplaces are made up of ecosystem players, be they partners, competitors, or an installed base of customers. All these constituencies keep their eyes out for disruptive developments that could either benefit or jeopardize their future performance. The early adopters are typically motivated by the benefits, seeking a first mover advantage, while the early majority normally takes a wait-and-see approach, thereby creating a chasm, which in turn can be crossed wherever there is an urgent customer problem that is resisting standard solutions and thus warrants taking a novel approach to solve it. If the category does show it is getting traction, then all those wait-and-see pragmatists will begin to feel threatened by FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), and that is what creates a tornado of demand that puts the category permanently on the map.

Okay, so there is reason to believe that under the right circumstances, markets will support the creation of a new category. That said, we should not underestimate the power of inertia. Markets do not welcome transformational changes with open arms. Indeed, their default move is to deflect most attempts. What we need is a proven playbook. Fortunately, there is one, written some forty years ago, written by an old boss of mine, Regis McKenna.

The Regis Touch

It is hard to overstate the impact that Regis had on high-tech marketing, especially in its early days when it was trying to break free from advertising as its primary medium. At the time, the tech sector was just emerging, the bulk of spending was in B2B markets, the focus was on automating core business processes, and every buying decision entailed considerable risk, not only in terms of the product and vendor’s staying power but also in terms of the impact of the business processes themselves. As a result, advertising per se was not sufficiently informative or credible to drive purchasing. Regis saw this and, with the help of a talented set of consultants and communications professionals, developed a public-relations-led approach that successfully launched hundreds of new products and created dozens of new categories.

The key to his approach was a framework called the infrastructure model that organized the various audiences and constituencies that make up a marketplace in what one might call a ladder of communications:

Relationship Marketing Infrastructure Model Geoffrey Moore

Here’s how it works. The goal is to convert prospects into customers. In B2B markets, those prospects organize around three centers of interest—the technology itself, the impact on productivity, and the financial returns. These prospects get their information most directly from the media, the technologists from the technical press, the end users these days from social media (no such thing, of course, back in the day), and the executives from the business press. The agents of the press, in turn, get a lot of their information from opinion leaders, be they the industry analysts for the technical press, the influencers for social media, or the financial investment analysts for the business press. Those opinion leaders, in turn, get their information from their engagement with the marketplace itself, be they customers, partners, or competitors already involved with the disruptive innovation.

The point is, any claims about the disruptive innovation are verified and validated by working down this model, which means any communications program should organize around working up the same model. Skipping over any one of these audiences and going straight to the prospects directly—the way advertising does—is bound to fail because you have not got your references lined up and sufficiently informed to support and endorse a high-risk buying decision. Product launches and category creation initiatives, therefore, work up this ladder of communications, rung by rung, starting in the executive suite, moving from there to the product organization, and from there to the go-to-market team. That team, in turn, needs to start with educating the ecosystem players, typically with talks and panel sessions at industry conferences, then connecting with the opinion leaders, typically via one-on-one briefings that end up being two-way dialogs, and only then out to the media that will engage with the target prospects.

Category Creation Playbook

A lot of what would go into a complete playbook is product and market-specific, but there are audience-centric principles that remain relatively constant. The key question in each case is, what is it about the emerging category that would be of interest to this particular constituency? With that in mind, here is a brief take:

  1. Executive team. This team will value growth to boost market cap, something that participation in an emerging category can be expected to deliver, but it may well be reluctant to take transformational risk to achieve it. If this team is not 100% behind the effort, don’t start, as every other rung on the latter ultimately calls for investments that this team must endorse.
  2. Product team. This team has to be all in for a wild ride—and usually is. You have to pressure test their claims nonetheless, as they can often get over their skis, promising more than they can deliver within the window that matters.
  3. Go-to-market team. This team requires maturity and patience. The big sales commissions won’t come until the category enters the tornado, so for now, the focus is on creating a market, not harvesting it. That means paying deep attention to developing the ecosystem, including bringing along the installed base, helping to engage and enlist partners, and (oddly enough) encouraging competitors. The last one is important because, ultimately, a category is defined by a set of competitors, not just one company, so for a healthy growing category you need to have peers that are winning too—hopefully in target market segments that are distinct from yours.
  4. Ecosystem. These are the people your go-to-market team is engaging with. The sales team has the installed base, the business development team, the partners, and the marketing team, the competitors. The goal is to get everyone speaking from their own perspective to reinforce your story that something big is underway. One item of note: With respect to competitors, marketing needs to develop a narrative that has room for more than one winner while at the same time staking out turf where your own differentiation makes you the obvious choice. What you do not want to do is bad-mouth the other team’s products—that will create anxiety that will cause everyone to wait and see some more. So, save your sharp tongue for when you get inside the tornado—that’s the no-holds-barred battleground where a well-placed elbow can make a real difference.
  5. Opinion leaders. The goal here is to get conceptual endorsement for the claims you will be making via the media. Opinion leaders need to maintain their independence and do not want to shill for you or anyone else. What they do want to do is look intelligent and have something differentiated to say. What they want from you is enough context to do their job and no interference thereafter. In addition, opinion leaders want to share their opinions with you, in part to influence your future investments, and so it is just as important to listen and ask them questions as it is to present your own story. With respect to your presentation, demos can be useful, but repurposing a customer sales pitch is not, as this audience is not going to buy your product but rather is going to opine on the reasons why other people might.
  6. Media. This is the means by which you will communicate with the three prospect audience types—the technical team, the end users, and the executive sponsors. Each has a preferred media type—industry press, social media, and business press—and each of these types wants to be treated in its own special way. The technical press wants to talk about the product itself. They want facts, love demos, and like to talk to specialists more than generalists. They also are often happy to beta test products or get any other kind of advanced notice as to what’s coming next. Social media wants to talk about the applications of the product, and the ways in which it will impact end users’ lives. So demos can work here only if they are in service to an end-user story as opposed to a run-through of all the features and functions. The business press wants to talk about the “size of the prize,” the impact of the new technology on productivity, how it will reengineer bottlenecking processes, and thus how much trapped value it will be able to release. Demos are wasted here, but PowerPoint can help a lot.
  7. Prospects. When category creation is the focus, it is important to engage the three types of prospects in the right order. If the technology is outrageous, you need to start with the technical audience first just to earn the right to talk to anyone else. If it is not outrageous, then the executive sponsor needs to be your first port of call. The reason is that the other two audiences will actually be willing to meet with you to learn about the latest and greatest thing, but they will have budget, not permission to get new budget, if the executive sponsor is not on board. So a typical path through a major account would start with an executive from your company having a conversation with the prospective executive sponsor at your target customer, which would lead to a referral to the technical team to test your bona fides, and then on to the end-user team, to validate your productivity claims. Proof-of-concept projects are necessary at the very beginning, but one of the major milestones in category creation per se is to generate enough marketplace acceptance that future prospects will forgo these tests.

To sum up, category creation is an outbound communications effort to orchestrate a coalition of the willing across a laddered set of constituencies, each with its own set of interests. The goal is to build an inbound path of verification that reinforces the new category’s right to existence. Trying to shortcut the outbound process by skipping over one or more audiences will defeat the purpose, as any doubts raised this early in the game result in lost momentum that can never be recovered. There is no magic here, but patience and discipline are required.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

— Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

What is Your Problem?

What is Your Problem?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you don’t have a problem, you’ve got a big problem.

It’s important to know where a problem happens, but also when it happens.

Solutions are 90% defining and the other half is solving.

To solve a problem, you’ve got to understand things as they are.

Before you start solving a new problem, solve the one you have now.

It’s good to solve your problems, but it’s better to solve you customers’ problems.

Opportunities are problems in sheep’s clothing.

There’s nothing worse than solving the wrong problem – all the cost with none of the solution.

When you’re stumped by a problem, make it worse then do the opposite.

With problem definition, error on the side of clarity.

All problems are business problems, unless you care about society’s problems.

Odds are, your problem has been solved by someone else. Your real problem is to find them.

Define your problem as narrowly as possible, but no narrower.

Problems are not a sign of weakness.

Before adding something to solve the problem, try removing something.

If your problem involves more than two things, you have more than one problem.

The problem you think you have is never the problem you actually have.

Problems can be solved before, during or after they happen and the solutions are different.

Start with the biggest problem, otherwise you’re only getting ready to solve the biggest problem.

If you can’t draw a closeup sketch of the problem, you don’t understand it well enough.

If you have an itchy backside and you scratch you head, you still have an itch. And it’s the same with problems.

If innovation is all about problem solving and problem solving is all about problem definition, well, there you have it.

Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.