By: Chuck Frey
product development in many industries. Moreover, the percentage of ideas that make it from lab to consumer is low. One factor that affects the probability of success is how innovators look at a given development challenge or problem.
Getting the best ideas from the R&D lab to consumers is a central challenge for new product development in many industries. Moreover, the percentage of ideas that make it from lab to consumer is low. One factor that affects the probability of success is how innovators look at a given development challenge or problem.
To illustrate, let’s consider the age old saying, “build a better mousetrap.” The mousetrap way of thinking has at least two severely limiting assumptions: First, it assumes that the only answer to the project or problem can be found within the technology field of mousetraps. Second, it defines the goal in terms of the solution (the “how”) rather than in terms of what the consumer needs (the “what”). This way of thinking can therefore be an obstacle to the development of newer, better and more effective ways to meet the consumer’s needs. In fact, it often doesn’t meet the consumer’s needs at all.
In our hypothetical “mousetrap” case, what is the fundamental consumer need? It’s a house free of mice, not a better mousetrap. The table below illustrates how this subtle difference in how we think can dramatically change how we approach subsequent product development:
| Problem Definition 1: there are mice in the house | Problem Definition 2: need a better mousetrap |
| Approaches to solve problem: – hire exterminator – buy hungry cats – move |
Approaches to solve problem: – mousepaper (U.S. 2,962,836) – multiple snares in 1 trap (U.S. 101,620) – electric power harpoon (U.S. 4,669,216) |
| Benefits – more diverse approach than just devices – higher probability of solving entrenched problem – more risky but higher potential for novelty |
Benefits – certainty (improve on proven/core technology) – known supply source for components – strong technical know-how in one technical area |
| Challenges – initially unknown cost or supplier – more groundwork before you start development – may rely on competency external to company |
Challenges – lots of competition in technology/product form – low probability of performance breakthrough – narrow approach to solve problem |
Now, let’s look at the “performance” of innovation for this case. As you can see from the table below, while there has been a lot of “invention” in mousetraps as measured by patents, marketplace performance suggests the consumer-based problem definition tracks more accurately with long-term consumer satisfaction and growth of the product or service in the marketplace.
|
Approach/Solution
|
Number of Patents Issued
|
Annual Sales
|
|
Mousetrap device
|
> 5000
|
$25 million
|
|
Professional Extermination
|
NA/service
|
$350 million
|
In conclusion, innovation that starts with an analysis of the consumer’s real-life needs and desired experiences (the “what”) can often allow innovators to devise more successful solutions than innovation that starts by assuming a better version of an existing technology is needed (the “how”).