Innovation in Process Design

A spicy take 🌶️…if we always run the standard design process, do we get standard results? And as designers, could we introduce the unexpected for the sake of learning to surprise our partners and even the business?  Two 💕 recent examples: 📕 Story 1. The GTM team suggested we build a self-service, end-to-end customer flow. The common design approach would be to: Talk to customers 🗣️ Understand their pain points 💡 Design a thing engineers could build 🛠️ Test it 🔍 Repeat 🔄 Except - the common approach wasn’t the fastest way to learn or build. We took a shortcut and chose a 100% human-based solution by partnering with CSMs and AMs (who are adaptable, flexible, and ALREADY talking to customers on a daily basis). Instead of spending months building software, the GTM org had them up and running with a workflow that immediately provided value to our customers and a way to gain insights and gather data. In this case, the unconventional (deploying humans against a software problem) gave us faster data and even more conviction that the flow was a problem worth solving with a fully engineered product, once we had the bandwidth to build. Are humans usually my first choice for problem-solving? Usually, not as a product designer. But this time, it was the most pragmatic option for our customers and the business. 📕 Story 2. Product Advisor Boards are relatively formal meetings - preparing slides ahead of time,  presenting to a panel, getting feedback on features, and reconvening at a later date. Last year, we tried something new. Without first doing research, we brought designs that leveraged the PAB for our round of input. The feedback was actionable, like mining 'gold'. This year, I’m exploring other disruptions like embedding a designer in each PAB discussion group to sketch ideas as the conversations happen. Introducing something unconventional to the process last year yielded fast feedback. I'm unsure how it will go this year, but it could be a great learning and experience for the team and the participants. 🌶️ = 💡 Some exciting product ideas don’t follow the standard ‘Design Process,” and my spidey sense is that deviating from the norm can lead to outside-the-bell-curve (in a good way) results. What do you think? Where did you use an atypical design process, and did it work?

This chart from The New York Times' recent piece on China's clean energy dominance isn't really about climate tech—it's a map of the future of all manufacturing. We pioneered the science behind lithium-ion batteries, solar cells, and EVs. China captured $143 billion in exports by mastering something we've dismissed as boring: process innovation. Here's what that means on the factory floor: While we chase the next breakthrough, Chinese manufacturers run millions of repetitions—tightening process windows from ±10% to ±0.1%, driving first-pass yield from 60% to 99.5%, cutting cycle times by seconds that compound into competitive advantage. They treat factories as learning systems, with in-line metrology feeding back to digital twins, SPC charts wallpapering control rooms, and playbooks that replicate success across dozens of facilities. The path forward isn't abandoning innovation—it's recognizing that process is innovation. Instrument every line. Protect recipes and process IP like the crown jewels they are. Publish OEE curves so teams see progress in real-time. Build right-sized, replicable modules instead of monument factories. Breakthroughs open doors. Process builds empires. The question is whether we'll trust the process before China owns every industry we invent. https://lnkd.in/eQBCC-Vq

Imagine transforming your biggest challenges into opportunities for growth. What if the key to innovation lies in solving problems that resonate deeply and generate real value? Innovation means solving problems that matter and generating value. However, to fully leverage this approach, it's essential to understand both sides of the equation. 1. Problems That Matter Identifying significant challenges is crucial. While the Jobs to Be Done (#JTBD) framework is instrumental, keep these five criteria in mind to deepen your understanding: 🔹 Importance: What are the consequences if this need remains unresolved? 🔹 Scope: Is this pain point widespread, or is it limited to a select few willing to pay a premium? 🔹 Current Solutions: Do existing solutions adequately address this need, or do they introduce additional challenges? 🔹 Trend Utilization: Are you leveraging subtle changes or emerging trends that aren't yet recognized? 🔹 Market Opportunity: Are there quantifiable opportunities that transcend existing categories? (Consider this within the JTBD context.) 2. Generate #value The second part of the equation focuses on value generation. Elke den Ouden's framework in Innovation Design illuminates the various levels and types of value to pursue: 👉 Levels of Value: ✔️ For the user ✔️ For the organization ✔️ For the ecosystem ✔️ For society 👉 Types of Value: ✅ Economic ✅ Psychological ✅ Sociological ✅ Ecological This straightforward approach empowers you to move beyond superficial discussions and concentrate on what truly matters. 👉 How do you define innovation in your work? What criteria do you use to identify valuable problems? ♻️ Share your insights in the comments!