The ‘Push and Pull’ of Innovation

One of the most interesting processes that we carry out on a daily basis is meeting an objective through successive approximations. This may sound bombastic, but it is actually very simple and common. The typical case is when, from the comfort of our seat, we want to throw a ball of paper in the trash can. The first time we do it, we are hardly going to achieve it, because although we can be very good at calculating distances, as well as the force and angle that we must use to dunk a piece of paper, we must add the weight, obstacles, and air currents in the office. Normally, we require several attempts, pushing or pulling a little bit each time, but finally, if we learn from each event and correct what is necessary, we manage to score.

We also use this process in learning family culture. It is even a classic phenomenon of our teenage training. Let's remember when we started partying. The back-and-forth over arrival time and the amount of information our parents required to give us permission was similar to basketball. Arriving 15 minutes late without warning could be tolerable, as could extending permissions up to an hour with notice, for example. But arriving an hour late without warning guaranteed us punishment, or at least some family drama. I still remember the shame I experienced when my mother went to my friends' house one morning to find out why I hadn't come home or called, only to discover that I, at that very moment, was knocking on the door of my home. Finding the fair point in our family relationships that allowed us to enjoy a good party, without worrying our parents too much, is part of all our life stories; and without a doubt it is a milestone in family culture.

In innovation generation, the more disruptive it is, the more it requires these successive approximations all the time. The design process cannot be linear, direct and infallible, because, even when those who express their needs are very clear, those who collect them and look for solutions do not necessarily fully understand them and therefore, the solutions they design will not entirely solve what users need. To address this gap, several paths have been found; from my point of view, two are the most effective and, fortunately, they are not mutually exclusive.

The first is to design functional prototypes that must be shown to the user so that they can use them and provide opinions and comments. With these comments, we return to the design board and once the modifications have been made, we go back to the users so that they can once again experience the development, provide feedback, and the improvement process continues. This is something we live with, without realizing it, in the operating systems of cellphones, tablets, and computers. We may believe that they do not consult us, but when something fails in our equipment, the systems provide feedback to the companies that generated the systems, most of the time, without our direct interaction (in cases where part of the information is private or protected, the systems will ask us if we want to notify the supplier about the circumstances of the failure). 

The second is to involve users and beneficiaries in discussions during the design, manufacturing and testing of the systems. This is less common, as it lengthens the design process considerably. A well-known example of this is the relationship between the architect and the client of a residential house, built according to the client's wishes. It is true that many delays are due to organizational and planning errors on behalf of the architects and their team. However, it must be recognized that many of the delays are due to changes that clients introduce on the fly, either because they saw something in a magazine or a house they like, or more importantly, because during a visit to the site they discovered a flaw, either aesthetic or functional. 

If we want to find innovations, either technological or social, that will last, it is very important that we apply both strategies. We should establish a calendar for prototype deliveries (on paper, on computer, site visits, in the case of a construction, for example), but between these deliveries we should be in constant communication with those who will be beneficiaries or users of the innovation. This undoubtedly takes more time and more personal management of changes and adjustments, but it also ensures that we get closer together, through successive approximations, to the result expected by all stakeholders. Those of us who design innovations must recognize that there is knowledge that is as valuable both on the side of technical expertise as it is in terms of experiential know-how. Hence, the “push and pull” is a tense process, but undoubtedly enriching.