[Sigia-l] Not All Innovations Are Equal?

[Trenouth, John]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pradyot Rai [mailto:pradyotrai at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Trenouth, John
Cc: sigia-l at asis.org
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Not All Innovations Are Equal?


Pradyot said:

>"Desirability" is unknown term to me. Please explain.

It is one of three dimensions (useful, usable, desirable) of value
according to one perspective on the integrated new product development
model.  From this perspective "value" is the level of positive impact a
person experiences of a product.  A useful product satisfies at least
one market and/or individual need. A usable product is one that
individuals of the target market can reliably and successfully operate
or interact with.  And a desirable product is one that people just want
(as influence by things such as features, cost, branding, perceived
scarcity, perceived quality, advertising, fashion, etc...).

Here is a visual of a couple variations on the ideas:
http://niblettes.com/blog/2005/11/06/theory-of-product-design-part-ii-in
pd-model/


Take the Segway for example.  The features and functionality it offers
are wonderful.  It is exceptionally easy to use.  But I won't buy one
because (and this may be a silly reason) it would make me look like a
bigger nerd than I already do.  So, they lost me on desirability.  Why
do people spend $200 on designer stressed jeans?  All brand ethos driven
desire. 

> How did they know that female consumers desired small, shiny, 
> metal shelled, cigarette-package shaped camera? 

I don't know.  But you can see how the physical design choices were
driven by the business strategy to maximize desirability.  The size made
it easy to keep in a purse, bag or pocket.  The metal shell made it look
and feel more industrial strength,  better quality.  The weight on the
Elph makes it feel more  serious, not like a disposable toy.  These
design decisions that made the digital Elph desirable seemed especially
desirable to female customers.  Did Canon target women specifically?  I
don't know, but it seems a reasonable assumption.  

> What did they do differently at the name of "business strategy"?

That's a question only an insider could truly answer, so I won't
conjecture.

> Let me put words in your mouth -- *many strategies are pure accidents,

> they follow path of innovation." I have numerous examples, but I will 
> stop right here.

Just the opposite.  Canon made the strategic decision with its digital
Elph (much as Apple did with its iPod) to win based on desirability.
Perhaps some of the design decisions and particular  niche market
successes may have had some accidental developments, but there was no
accident with the business strategy.

Where do you think the balance is and should be between strategic
opportunism and intenet?