INNOVATION SPECIAL What
The Wright Brothers Could Teach Today's Innovators About Solving Problems
THREE TIPS FOR TESTING YOUR ASSUMPTIONS THE WRIGHT--ER, RIGHT--WAY
One key to successful innovation, a growing body of
innovation thinkers believe, is trial-and-error experimentation. Proponents of
the Lean Startup methodology urge innovators to create a minimum viable product (MVP)--something that solves a customer’s
problem adequately but isn’t perfectly polished--and use it as a vehicle to
gather critical in-market learning. The approach makes many executives inside
big companies nervous. After all, experiments can fail, which implies taking on
a risk that could blow back in some way to harm the core business. And in some
industries even developing a good enough product is time consuming and expensive.
Consider how, for example, innovators approached the
development of manned flight. Since most animals that can fly have wings, one
group naturally thought about developing strap-on wings. To test a particular
design, they’d go to the top of a tall structure, and jump. Wrong assumptions
had predictable consequences. Other innovators tried to create flying machines,
taking years to build expensive prototypes that often didn’t survive the
testing process.
THE WRIGHT BROTHERS FOUND RELATIVELY SIMPLE, LOW-RISK
WAYS TO TEST THEIR ASSUMPTIONS.
The way the Wright Brothers approached the problem
offers important lessons for modern innovators. The Wright Brothers were
consummate experimenters. But they found relatively simple, low-risk ways to
test their assumptions. Rather than going to the top of a tall building and
jumping or spending years tinkering to create the perfect prototype, they built
and flew kites. Not only could
they build kites more rapidly, but they hadn’t risked life and limb or depleted
their bank accounts
when it turned out that they got something wrong.
Still, they hungered for other ways to speed the
learning process. In 1901, using a wooden box, a hacksaw blade, bicycle-spoke
wire, and a fan, they built a six-foot long “wind tunnel.” After a month of
tinkering, they figured out how to use it to test assumptions about design. The
tunnel allowed them to see how different shaped wings would perform in
different wind conditions without having to build an entire craft, and, of
course, rebuild that craft if something bad happened.
THEY DIDN’T RISK LIFE AND LIMB WHEN IT TURNED OUT THAT
THEY GOT SOMETHING WRONG.
By simplifying the testing process, the Wright
Brothers could test more than 200 types of wings in two exhilarating months.
They experimented with models proposed by other would-be aviators, carefully measuring
the aerodynamic lift of different designs in different conditions. Wilbur Wright later
recalled that they learned that most of the mathematical assumptions inventors
used about how different aspect ratios--the ratio between the wing’s length and
its span--would affect lift were “full of errors.”
Analyzing the data that came from their rapid
experiments accelerated the Wright Brothers’ path to developing a viable flying
machine. Wilbur wrote, “it is doubtful if anyone would have ever developed a
flyable wing without first developing this data.”
The wind tunnel allowed the Wright Brothers to learn a
tremendous amount without creating full prototypes or doing the equivalent of
in-market learning. And you can learn before you build a MVP by considering
three straightforward approaches.
Do desk research. A few
years ago, Innosight advised a
team inside a big consumer products company that was thinking about a new
offering to target college campuses. The company hoped to deliver a device to
centralized points on campuses, drive usage through targeted awareness
campaigns, and then make money on the consumable components that went into the
device. The business plan assumed that it would take about three months to work
through the process of getting approval to sell to a school. However, no one on
the team had ever sold to a school before.
They could of course go and pilot the idea at a few
schools and see how long it took. Or they could simply pick up the phone and
call someone who made a living selling to schools. One of the team members had
a family friend who worked at a company that sold security solutions to
schools. He was more than happy to talk about his experiences. It turned out in
many cases the sales cycle wasn’t three months--it was three years. Schools
move slowly, with decision-making authority intentionally diffuse. That didn’t
mean the idea was bad, it just meant the team needed to approach it differently
and assume it would grow more slowly than it first projected. There is a
misbegotten belief that action is the only way to learn. The combination of
LinkedIn and Google mean that experts who can shed light on critical
assumptions are no more than a mouse click away.
THE WIND TUNNEL ALLOWED THE WRIGHT BROTHERS TO LEARN A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT WITHOUT CREATING FULL PROTOTYPES.
Run a thought experiment. Fast food giantMcDonald’s
regularly evaluates new concepts for its menu. A few years ago it considered a
shrimp salad. The idea fit general trends toward health consciousness. It could
be pre-packed, fitting neatly into McDonald’s delivery model. However, any idea
McDonald’s introduces has to have the potential to scale to its tens of thousands of
stores around the globe. McDonald’s ran a thought experiment. How much shrimp
would be required if it scaled the idea around the world? How did that compare
to the current supply of shrimp? It turned out that
McDonald’s would put a significant dent in the U.S. shrimp supply, which would
drive up prices and make the idea unprofitable. You can run your own “shrimp
stress test” in your imagination. What would it look like if you succeeded? Is
there a hidden rate-limiting assumption that would make success impossible?
Thought experiments are wonderful ways to learn because they don’t cost
anything, and force you to take an external perspective on key strategic
issues. They can be conducted by an individual, but work best when they involve
people who bring diverse, external perspectives.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ARE WONDERFUL WAYS TO LEARN
BECAUSE THEY DON’T COST ANYTHING.
Perform a focused feasibility test. About
15 years ago, Reed Hastings had an idea. What if, instead of going to a store
to return a movie, a consumer could simply return it through the mail?
Customers would still pay late fees--after all, that enticement to return
videos helped ensure adequate inventory of movies--but the ease of dropping a
DVD in the mail would increase convenience and customer satisfaction.
Ultimately Hastings and his team built an incredibly sophisticated system to
manage the intricacies of delivering millions of DVDs around the United States
and shifted the model to a highly disruptive all-you-can-eat subscription
offering. Before making any investment, however, Hastings had a basic question:
could you actually mail a DVD and not have it get mangled? It was simple enough
to learn more about this uncertainty. Hastings mailed a CD to himself in an
envelope. A couple of days later he had his answer: the postal service could in
fact complete a mailing without damage. Total investment: less than $5.
The activities described above aren’t quite as
exciting as developing a full blown offering and attracting real customers.
But, like the wind tunnel, they allow innovators to learn quickly with lower
investment and lower risk. As Wilbur Wright noted, “Sometimes the non-glamorous
lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project.”
So, what’s your wind tunnel?
WRITTEN
BY Scott Anthony
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3033613/what-the-history-of-aviation-could-teach-todays-innovators-about-solving-problems?partner=newsletter
No comments:
Post a Comment