Chapter Nine. Case Studies: The Power of the Upper Right

In this chapter and the next, we present additional case studies of products and companies that have successfully moved to the Upper Right. These case studies epitomize the ideas and methods discussed in this book and serve as benchmarks for any company that wants to create breakthrough products. In this chapter, case studies highlight breakthrough innovation from within the United States. In the next chapter, we highlight breakthrough innovation across the globe. In this chapter, we provide a diverse array of case studies across a broad range of categories: education seating, electric vehicles, football stadiums, machining tools, trucks, and refillable packaging. We have also included the perspectives of two innovative inventors using a term we borrowed from Disney referring to them as the new Innoventors. We close by discussing the new relationship in funded education projects needed between companies and universities. We cite two case studies that demonstrate how universities can support early innovation in companies using interdisciplinary faculty-led iNPD project studios.

Yet the SET Factors have changed; education is different now than it was a half-century ago. Classes are no longer taught in a static lecture format. Instead the dynamic approach is to intertwine lecture, group work, and individual work in a two-hour period. Having every student sit in a neat row facing the front is not effective when, at times, group work or access to the other three walls of the classroom are desired. Furthermore, students have laptops that must fit on their work surface and be protected when not in use.

Steelcase recognized the opportunity to reinvent the classroom of the (near) future. After considering different segments, the company targeted higher education, pursuing two rounds of ethnographic research to uncover its first opportunity in the education market. Sean Corcorran, General Manager for the new Steelcase Education Division, led the effort. The first round focused on two months of visits at two college campuses, giving them the insights to focus on classroom issues in higher ed. Next came a year-long study through visits to large and small classrooms at different colleges, observing their use and having conversations with students, faculty, and administrators. The team recognized that classroom furniture was poor in ergonomics, did not move, and generally lacked innovation. Secondary research then dove into understanding how people learn, again indicating that the static classroom of yesterday no longer meets the needs of education today. The goal was to target ergonomic seating that resulted in a dynamic classroom environment.

The team then approached IDEO, a global design and innovation firm with a long history of creating award-winning products. Together the design firm and the furniture systems manufacturer created a new type of classroom seating, the Node (see Figure 9.1). The project began with a one-day interactive session resulting in the idea for a new alternative to the tablet chair. The project then moved to IDEO, which led the conceptualization and development of the Node design.

Figure 9.1. The Node by Steelcase, designed by IDEO.

(Courtesy of IDEO)

IDEO then created a series of furniture concepts based largely on stakeholder research with students, instructors, and other staff members at community colleges, a key lead purchaser of new classroom environments. During the discussions, one dean pointed to a 50-year-old-design chair and said that the student was “stuck” there. That was telling and verified the insight that there was an open POG to pursue.

After the initial user research, IDEO looked at the classroom with open eyes, exploring new tables and systems. The idea of a compact chair was the best concept to move forward with. In developing the chair, IDEO used a rapid design–prototype–redesign approach. As part of its iterative design process, the team built various full-scale product prototypes (see Figure 9.2), invited students and instructors to test them, and often swapped parts on the fly in response to feedback.

Figure 9.2. Various prototypes in the evolution of the Node.

(Courtesy of IDEO)

According to Thomas Overthun, team lead at IDEO, in the design of furniture, comfort of the user comes first; style follows function. The chair is designed to accommodate the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male. This is accommodated with a clever two degree-of-freedom system, allowing for the tablet surface to swing out and the entire surface and arm to rotate 110° out of the way for ease of ingress and egress, but with space efficiency. The chair also had to be designed for abuse in a classroom environment, yet light enough to readily move around. The result is a unique style for classroom seating. The Node is a plastic molded seat with a one-piece back and arm. The plastic base is stiff, but the chair is flexible to accommodate different body types. The original chair is on six caster wheels for stability, and the base is designed to readily hold a backpack or other personal items. The “personal” work surface is nonhanded and large enough to hold a laptop and a pad of paper or a book. The result is a product that can be arranged in the traditional row seating, but it can also be quickly and easily moved to reconfigure the classroom dynamically into circles, smaller rectangular groups, and otherwise as needed to optimize the classroom experience through multiple configurations through a class period. The final product, dubbed the Node chair, has received praise for promoting student collaboration, allowing educators to reconfigure classrooms to fit different teaching styles, and enabling institutions to save money by making spaces more flexible and accommodating for varied uses.

Aesthetically, the chair stands out. James Ludwig, vice president at Steelcase, called the design an “odd duck”—weird but good because the chair both looks and is different. That it stood out highlighted that the functionality was different, meeting the needs of the college in a new way. The chair is offered in 12 colors for the shells, 3 for the base, and 5 for the work surface, to fit into almost any environment. And as with all good product development, the chair is readily extended to K–12 education and is finding other uses.

The project to develop the Node required an interdisciplinary team across IDEO and Steelcase. At IDEO, three industrial designers and two engineering designers led the effort over a half-year period of time. At the same time, three engineers at Steelcase provided ongoing feedback from a manufacturing and technical point of view. Steelcase’s industrial design department also provided intermittent feedback. After IDEO delivered a fully realized industrial design, Steelcase engineered its production on an accelerated schedule so that the product’s market arrival would coincide with schools’ purchasing cycles. Once turned over to Steelcase, Overthun remained involved from IDEO’s side to maintain consistency as research and concepts were translated into final production form over the next year.

In an education environment, especially a public one, cost is often a driver. Every feature on the chair was analyzed to make sure it was needed and was designed in a cost-effective way. The chair is approximately 50% more expensive than the traditional tablet furniture, but the functional and interactive value added is so much more.

The VOA of the node against the traditional tablet chair (see Figure 9.3) illustrates the breadth and depth of value that the Node adds to the education environment. The only real strength of the tablet is its durability—the same chair you sat in at school might have been used by your grandparent two generations earlier. Other than that, it offered no real strengths and, instead, displayed quite a few weaknesses. The Node, on the other hand, contributes value across the board. The Node establishes a strong emotional connection for the user, stimulating the educational activity. Its unique identity highlights its innovation and invites the user to interact with the chair. It has an attractive, dynamic aesthetic. The chair encourages social interaction and aligns with Steelcase’s commitment to sustainability with minimal environmental impact by following McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry’s Cradle to Cradle process, where it was certified at the Silver level. The chair itself is built with abuse in mind yet is made of plastic. From the user’s point of view, this is the one area that must be proven over time, particularly whether it is as durable and reliable as its tablet competitor. (In the VOA, this is indicated with the gray line between medium and high, indicating that the potential is there to transform the value proposition as the customer becomes reassured of the chair’s performance.)

Figure 9.3. VOA of traditional tablet chair (a) and the Node (b).

The development of the Node is another example of finding an opportunity in a product that has been established and used for a lengthy period, but a contemporary look at the product and the change in SET Factors result in an innovation that can revolutionize an industry.

Response to the chair has been overwhelming. It was released in 2010, and the first year sales doubled expectations—and in the second year, the numbers doubled again. The Node has also won several design awards, including a Silver IDEA award in the category of Office and Productivity, the Spark International Design Award, the NeoCon Innovation Award, and the Interior Design Magazine Best of the Year Award. With the expectation that competitors will attempt to knock off the success of the design, Steelcase has submitted half a dozen utility and design patents.

Corcorran commented that the success of the chair, and the success of products in general, is found in the little details; little decisions can make a big difference in the outcome of a project. It is also interesting that Corcorran had been on IDEO’s staff for 17 years before taking a position at Steelcase. He understood that IDEO’s advantage was to understand and design for the human and technical factors in the project, but as a client, he had to understand the business, the motivation for the product. This was why Steelcase began with its own research into the education environment and determined the type of new product it wanted to introduce before going to IDEO to design the product innovation. The lesson is that all companies need to understand the methods for product innovation generally and have mechanisms in place to uncover opportunities even when working with a design innovation firm; such a basis allows for a more fruitful collaboration, with the right expectations, between product company and design firm.¹

Figure 9.5. Dallas Stadium.

(© 2012 Ralph Cole/Dallas Cowboys. All rights reserved.)

Figure 9.6. Positioning map of Upper Right Dallas Stadium against the Lower Left generic stadium (such as the Cotton Bowl) and Lower Right low style but high use of technology stadium (such as Texas Stadium).

What has made Dallas Stadium a breakthrough sports venue is the blend of the exterior and interior architecture, the 14 art pieces commissioned for the stadium, and the integration of more than 500 monitors. What has not been written about is the fact that Dallas Stadium is the first integrated smart stadium, with screens of every scale all working in a synchronized system developed by AMX. Dallas Stadium has crossed a new line in the relationship between virtual and real—for the first time, the two exist in parallel in an unavoidable relationship. Although every stadium has a “jumbotron,” there is usually just one, and it is located at one end of the stadium. Fans still use these screens primarily for replay. Dallas is the first smart stadium where monitors fully reflect the new duality of humans coexisting in virtual and real space. Everyone talks about the 180-foot monitors that run between the 20 yard lines, but there are few spaces anywhere in Dallas Stadium where you do not see a screen of some size. It adds a new dimension to the centuries-old argument of simulacra, the relationship to real and the copy of real. Throughout the building, the real players on the field are presented at various scale from small monitors viewed at a distance, reducing players to specs, to the mega screens, where players are viewed on heroic scale hanging in the sky above the field and spectators. All we would need is Wagner’s music, and we could be in Valhalla.

In the stadium, huge screens display action just above the field and in real time. An initial problem was resolved when it was realized that one side of the stadium would see the action in the direction it was occurring, while the opposite side would see players going the “wrong” way. This resulted in a new programming solution that flips the image in real time to make sure both sides see the image as consistent with the field.

Bryan Trubey of HKS Architectures, Inc., designed the stadium structure. Both Trubey and the firm are known for designing sports stadiums. The architecture, while referential to the former Cowboys stadium, is a unique visual structure and provides a fan experience that defines a new boundary between virtual and real. The art collection the Joneses have integrated throughout the stadium is also a distinct aspect of Dallas Stadium that separates it from other venues. The art is set in a variety of spaces, from public walkways to private clubs, and the interior design of these spaces is modern in style; it provides a high-end, elegant back drop not at all like the usual over-the-top sports images and graphics present in other football stadiums. Instead, whenever sports images are used, they are produced in a sophisticated way that complements the art and interiors of the building. The building exists in shades of gray and, instead of using large, bold color images, elegantly produced black-and-white photomurals are blended into the interior spaces. The building is open for tours, and you can have your photograph taken with or without a Dallas Cheerleader on the star on the 50-yard-line. This is one of the few traditional tourist activities you can do. The stores for fan memorabilia are also designed with a sense of restraint. The stadium works as a coordinated whole where architecture, technology, and art combine to create an experience analogous to a large high-end family room with a football field on the floor.

When fans used to sit in a football stadium during an afternoon and watch a game on the field, the scoreboard was a minimal part of the experience. The technology required to complement and support the play on the field was minimal as well. We are becoming increasingly dependent on blends of virtual and real working in harmony. This requires the need for sophisticated invisible systems to coordinate that experience. Companies such as AMX will start to become a greater part of our everyday world as we seek to make every experience a blend of virtual and real and to define our own boundary of simulacra.

Contrast the Dallas Stadium with the design of PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates (see Figure 9.7). PNC Park is an excellent of example of technology in the background and the experience of the game in the foreground. The park was designed to look like the oldest professional baseball parks, Fenway Park in Boston and Wrigley Field in Chicago. When built in 2001, the nostalgia trend had hit every facet of society, and ballparks had become a primary symbol of the phenomena. The difference is that the new fields look like the classic ballparks, but they have a new infrastructure and a state-of-the-art array of amenities. PNC Park, and other new parks like it, brought intimacy back to the game; a smaller park than its previous multiuse stadium, it offered seating closer to the field and brought people in to watch the game, even with one of the worst teams in the league for more than a decade. To augment the fans’ experience, the Pirates hired Disney to train the ushers and other greeters at the park.

Figure 9.7. PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

(Reprinted with permission of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; photo by Fong)

Similar to Dallas Stadium, PNC Park is in the Upper Right, although it is subdued in comparison. At PNC Park, the high technology is hidden from the fans, such as with the high-performance, sand-based grass, which includes a drainage system that can process 14 inches of water per hour (see Figure 9.8). A decade after it opened, PNC Park is still considered one of the best parks in baseball, drawing fans to enjoy the game and fostering the hope that the Pirates will someday be World Champs again.

Figure 9.8. Illustration of the high-technology playing field in PNC Park.

(Reprinted with permission of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; graphic by Dan Marsula and James Hilston)

Clearly, there are different ways to create great experiences for the fans. Baseball is nostalgic. Football is aggressively futuristic. And with that futurism emerges the ultra-high-tech, high-styled Upper Right Dallas Stadium.

In a typical tooling development project, Kennametal focused on the tool material, advanced coatings, and cutting tool geometry. This time the company took an expanded approach, considering compatibility with machine systems, cooling strategies, and strengths and weaknesses of competitors’ tools. In the past, cooling strategies, in particular, were considered to be beyond the company’s domain. Yet this broader, nontraditional view of the problem suggested that the combination of cooling and cutting was the key. Approximately 90% of the mechanical energy required to cut metal is converted into thermal energy, which is especially large with difficult materials such as titanium. Typically, a thick stream of metal cutting coolant is aimed toward the cutting zone of the tool from 3 to 12 inches away, to remove heat, lubricate the tool, and wash away the chips that result from the cutting operation. The problem with traditional approaches is that it wastes coolant, is not accurately aimed, and lacks desired effectiveness to sufficiently remove metal chips.

The competitive technologies (see Figure 9.9) included the traditional low-cost carbide turning tool with external coolant (Lower Left), high-pressure coolant systems using more advanced technology (Lower Right), and stylized chip-breaking geometry in the Upper Left. The Upper Left chip breakers used tool topography to break the chips but could be designed to appeal to the machinist. For example, Kennametal has designed chip breakers in the shape of stars for U.S. customers and the Maple Leaf for Canadian customers, with similar performance.

Figure 9.9. Positioning map for Beyond Blast titanium machining.

(Photo courtesy of Kennametal.)

These factors created an opportunity to fill the Upper Right quadrant. The insight was to integrate the coolant application into the cutting insert itself. This allowed the coolant stream to be better focused where needed, resulting in more efficient cooling, less coolant required, better lubrication, and a longer life for the cutting tool.

The result is called Beyond Blast (see Figure 9.10), an innovation in metal-cutting tool technology introduced by Kennametal in 2010. The unique design enables coolant to be delivered through the cutting insert. The technology enables the machine to speed up 50%, making cutting time faster. The cutting insert also lasts 300% longer than conventional tools at standard cutting conditions.

Figure 9.10. Beyond Blast, by Kennametal.

(Courtesy of Kennametal)

The VOA (see Figure 9.11) highlights the innovation of Beyond Blast and the value delivered to the customer. The VOA of the traditional approach shows that all relevant attributes are either low or medium in terms of value. Medium in this application is taken to mean “industry standard”—it is an acceptable level but doesn’t go out of its way in that attribute. Looking at the Beyond Blast VOA, high levels of value are delivered for some set of attributes in every VO category. A few stand out.

Figure 9.11. VOA for traditional machining and Beyond Blast innovation.

Aesthetics is high. The average person might not be excited by the design of Beyond Blast. But for anyone who works in machining, it stands out as elegant, with a strong form that communicates its unique functionality. The result is a tool with a sophisticated aesthetic that results from an integration of parts, not a kluge that could have occurred by simply connecting the parts. The unique style also results in a high (and highly recognized) identity. In a similar manner, sensuality is high. Again, for those that work on the machine floor and in the context of machining, this product is sexy. The gold color (not unique, but not plentiful in the field) also adds to the overall style of the product.

Yet the quality and core technology are also generally high. The product is far more durable than the competition, lasting three times longer than the standard carbide cutting inserts. The environmental impact is also high: Coolant quantities can be reduced, and the lengthened time before the insert needs to be discarded are both beneficial to the environment.

It is interesting that a customer might feel skeptical about the product because it is new and not yet widely accepted by the industry, resulting in medium levels for security and confidence in the VOA. This is typical for a unique, new-to-the-world product in the conservative metal-cutting tool market. However, this can be overcome by working closely with customers and communicating successful cases to establish a reputation as a “proven solution.”

The look of the cutter inspires the people using it because it looks like it can deliver. This is a sophisticated version of form and function working in concert, which puts the product into the Upper Right for this market segment (see Figure 9.9).

The profit margins are confidential, but the potential alone for increased market share leads to a high profit impact. The product not only leverages Kennametal’s brand as a premium tool, but also augments the brand through the innovative aspect of the product. Finally, the product is extendable, in that other difficult, high-temperature machining applications and materials—for example, those that generate high heat and failure due to heat, such as stainless steels, superalloys, and high-alloy steel—are candidates for the application of Beyond Blast technology.

At the direction of Kennametal management and product marketing, Innovation Ventures Engineer Paul Prichard and Breakthrough Technology Manager Tom Muller led a multidisciplinary team of talented engineers and technologists in the process to innovate and develop Beyond Blast. Using tools from this book and conceptualization methods, they identified the opportunity and envisioned the Beyond Blast system. Kennametal recognizes the value of its breakthrough. At the time of writing, several U.S. patents had been issued and patent applications were pending. The product also has inspired employees within Kennametal to think differently about problem-solving approaches. The success of Beyond Blast marshaled resources for new innovation projects, and the freedom to pursue something this innovative has become an icon for the new “Different Thinking” advertisement campaign. Kennametal has been recognized for its innovation in the machine tools industry, and the company won the Innovator of the Year Award from PDMA in 2010 largely because of Beyond Blast.

The biggest takeaway from this case study is that innovation is not just for consumer products. If breakthrough innovation can be found in a seemingly mundane and mature business-to-business industry such as metal-cutting tools, it can truly happen anywhere.

With the recognition of global warming and its impact from burning fossil fuels, and increased fuel prices in the twenty-first century, a new opportunity for electric-based vehicles has emerged (see Figure 9.12).

Figure 9.12. Electric vehicles at different levels of value: Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Honda Insight, and Segway.

Tesla Motors showed with the introduction of the Roadster in 2008 that, for a hefty price, electric vehicles can be fast and sexy. Yet a new class of vehicles that began to emerge after 2010 will take the EV from niche to mainstream. The evolution of battery technology has allowed the development of these vehicles, most notably the Nissan Leaf, the first mass-produced electric vehicle introduced in 2010. The Leaf strikes a critical value proposition that leverages the social consciousness of people’s desire to reduce their carbon footprint (see Figure 9.13). The vehicle’s parts are 99% recyclable, adding another level of satisfaction to improving sustainability. The design of the car itself is basic and contemporary, emphasizing affordability over style. The technical reason the Leaf is accessible is the evolution of battery capacity. The Leaf’s ability to travel 100 miles between charges provides a range well beyond what most Americans drive in a day. Realistically, except for long trips, the car can fulfill most people’s daily needs. However, the Leaf and other EVs still need to overcome people’s fears of running out of charge. As people hear about the lack of problems with charge capacity by Leaf owners and they begin to see new charging stations available at work, malls, and supermarkets, they will feel more secure about the vehicle.

Figure 9.13. VOA of Nissan Leaf.

The Leaf will probably continue to have its best success in urban and suburban contexts in moderate and warm climates. The other concern, especially for those in mountainous topographies or snowy climates, is whether the car will have the horsepower to work reliably in challenging environments. With half the rated horsepower over a similar IC vehicle, customers might feel a lack of security, an issue that tests and reviews from other customers will alleviate.

A different approach to improving fuel efficiency is the hybrid vehicle—part electric, part internal combustion. Toyota’s introduction of the Prius in 1997 in Japan and 2001 worldwide, was the first widely accepted alternative to the straight internal combustion car. The Prius uses electricity at low speeds, captured from energy waste during braking, but still a traditional internal combustion engine at higher speeds. A new class of vehicles that began to emerge commercially in the 2010s is the plug-in hybrid, most notably the Chevy Volt, introduced in 2011. Here the car works as an electric vehicle until the battery is drained and then reverts to a small IC engine, working like a traditional vehicle. The Volt has a range as an EV of only 35 miles, enough for the average American to travel to and from work, but the IC that kicks in gives an overall range of 375 miles, allowing the Volt to be taken on long trips. So although the Volt doesn’t provide complete independence from fossil fuels, it does overcome the security issues that hinder the broad acceptance of EVs (see Figure 9.14).

Figure 9.14. VOA of Chevy Volt.

Both the Volt and the Leaf maintain an overall form and aesthetic look that resembles traditional IC vehicles. In this way, they reach the broader market that desires an environmentally friendly, or at least fuel-efficient, vehicle without a stigma. Still, the companies targeted different initial buyers. For the Leaf, Nissan targeted environmentally conscious, middle-aged owners with a good income and their own home, where they can charge the vehicle, and who are looking to move on from their hybrids. GM sought a more mass-appeal initial market for the Volt, targeting the techies rather then environmentally driven drivers, using the marketing campaign, “More car than electric.”

The social VO attribute is worth noting. Both vehicles have interesting potential in the social arena. First, when relatively new, the vehicles become a focal point for conversation. People want to learn more and find out about the experience of driving EVs and plug-in hybrids. For the Leaf, in particular, future charging stations could be a conduit for social interaction with others while vehicles are charging. Imagine a new type of rest stop—not just on the highway but in cities—as well as an economic infrastructure built around the vehicle charging activity: eateries, sundry stores, gaming environments, and more.

Earlier electric-based vehicles set the stage for the success of the Leaf and Volt but themselves failed. In 1999, Honda introduced the first commercially accessible hybrid, the original Insight. When the Insight was first released, its sales were flat. Although the SET Factors for an environmentally friendly vehicle were emerging, gas prices were still relatively low and the car’s styling communicated that it was different but in an odd-looking way, essentially limiting the market to those few early adopters who were driven by environmental issues. Honda then redesigned the vehicle and became positioned to tap into the larger market and cross the chasm as economics and environmental awareness increased the potential value of the hybrid vehicle.

Another electric vehicle that failed to achieve broad adaptation is the Segway two-wheeled personal transportation vehicle launched by inventor Dean Kamen in 2001. The two-wheeled vehicle uses an advanced control system to be easily steered while standing up; all the user needs to do is lean in the direction of travel. Expectations were that the Segway would replace cars in urban environments. Kamen stated that the Segway “will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy.”² However Kamen, a brilliant inventor, misread the SET Factors necessary for breakthrough innovation. Its biggest problem was that it was neither a road nor sidewalk vehicle, and many municipalities outlawed its use on the sidewalk. Its hefty price tag of $3,000 in 2002 significantly limited interest in the marketplace.

At times, radically new products that misread the SET Factors set the stage for future successes. In their book Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century, the late architect Bill Mitchell, from MIT, and Chris Borroni-Bird and Lawrence Burns, from GM, presented an argument for a podlike two-person vehicle for use in urban environments.³ They argued that information technology, control systems, and electric motor technology were ripe for developing such a vehicle that could significantly improve congestion and pollution in crowded urban areas.

The SET Factors in car design change quickly, yet the design of the vehicles takes time due to their complexity and the number of parts that must be integrated. At the same time, the large capital commitment to produce the vehicles prevents rapid change in fundamental platform structure for the vehicles. The current and emerging landscape is very different than when the first edition of this book was released in 2001. At that time, getting companies to think seriously about the environmental attribute of the VOA was difficult. The public still did not understand the real impact on the environment caused by the IC engine. And although 9-11 occurred just a few weeks before the book was released, fuel prices were still generally low. The first edition of the book emphasized case studies around the design of SUVs and other larger family vehicles.

However, the SET Factors have changed, all for the better for the environment. Customer and company alike understand the issues with carbon footprint. People rightly fear dependence on fossil fuels and recognize that their availability is limited. The price of fuel has risen, with no reason to expect it to go significantly down. And no longer is it generally accepted to drive a large vehicle for no real reason. Arguably, the focus of American car companies to allocate their profits to the larger vehicles partly led to their economic crash in 2009. As these companies came out of bankruptcy, they began to focus on smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles, leading to their renewed profitability. Thus, appropriately, the SUV is replaced with the EV in this second edition of the book.

Companies can have a different type of relationship with universities. Companies often want to explore new markets and new opportunities, but their resources are limited; it would be a luxury to be able to invest the resources (personnel and money) internally to explore such opportunities. On the other hand, universities that include an educational focus on innovation have bright, motivated students who are keen to learn the process of product innovation and excited to uncover new understandings and new opportunities that are real. The match between such university programs and companies can lead to a fruitful and mutually productive relationship.

There are important aspects of finding a good match between company and university. If innovation is truly sought, the company must propose an open-ended problem and be comfortable that the university will explore the innovation space in a way that balances the company’s needs and its educational mission to the students. In addition, the university program and student participants must have the correct skill set in the area needed to explore the problem space. The benefit to the students is a real-world application of the concepts being learned and the potential to deliver meaningful, and potentially patentable, solutions to the sponsor. But the sponsor must realize that, in the end, it is funding a course and not hiring consultants. With the right match, companies will be pleasantly surprised by the ideas, research, and way of thinking about their product space delivered to them. The result is open innovation in a new way, with the university providing the service of innovation thinking and the company providing the service of introducing ripe problems for students to solve.

Such university programs are emerging. Two examples are found at our universities. Carnegie Mellon University has a Master of Product Development program, a one-year professional degree in design thinking and innovation.⁴ The program, now a decade old, was one of the first of its kind. Its capstone course is the Integrated Product Development course, which has been taught at Carnegie Mellon for nearly a quarter-century. The course follows the iNPD process laid out in Chapter 5, “A Comprehensive Approach to User-Centered, Integrated New Product Development.” Integrated teams of engineers, industrial and communications designers, and MBA students work through the four phases of iNPD based on an open-ended, corporate-sponsored project. The course begins with an open problem statement that often explores new market areas for a company. At the end of 16 weeks, a complete product concept that is ready for program approval results. Dozens of patents and commercial products have resulted from the course.

The Live Well Collaborative (LWC) is a nonprofit C6 formed by P&G and the University of Cincinnati.⁵ In the past five years, the LWC has been involved in 30 projects with member companies. The companies include General Mills, LG, Giti Group, Kraft, Boeing, Duchossois, and Hill Rom. Gil Cloyd, the former chief technology officer of P&G, and Nancy Zimpher, former U.C. president, appointed a team with representation from the University of Cincinnati and P&G to build a new model for university and corporate collaboration. The team chose a theme of responding to the needs of consumers age 50 and up for two reasons. It was seen as an underserved consumer market by P&G with significant potential, and the theme of inclusive/universal design was of interest to the lead college of DAAP at the U.C. The unique attribute of the LWC is that the IP developed in studio projects goes back to the company to feed the pipeline of innovation. No debate arises on who owns the IP. This IP relationship is possible through the unique master agreement forged by the university and the corporate members and built into the umbrella of the C6 nonprofit. Jeff Weedman, the vice president of Global Business and Development at P&G, recognized this master agreement when he awarded the U.C. and LWC the award for best university partner in 2009.

The next two case studies are examples of specific projects that were done at Carnegie Mellon’s MPD program and University of Cincinnati’s Live Well Collaborative in collaboration with industry.

The 15-month project began with a summer internship in which five students worked at Navistar under the guidance of MPD faculty using the first two phases of the iNPD process in Chapter 5 to identify the opportunity for that lifestyle-savvy, professional driver. Before then, the trucking OEM industry (and buyers) focused primarily on the business aspect of the truck: fuel efficiency, weight, and driver capabilities. The trucking industry had not thought as much about the lifestyle of the driver as he is away from his family for a week or two. The Carnegie Mellon team uncovered convincing user research that the quality of life for the driver during off-hours time was critical to the overall satisfaction of the job. The team also uncovered that the driver, often thought of as a menial labor worker, was a professional who desired the respect that other professionals demanded. The SET Factors highlighted the social expectations of drivers, their need for technology and connectivity, the economic realities of the business side (such as fuel costs), and the more than 100% driver turnover every year in fleets due in part to unsatisfied driver lifestyle.

Ethnographic research found that the living space behind the driver’s seat was overly constrained. In this tiny space (the footprint the size of a two-person tent), the driver had to sleep, eat, work, and relax, even though there was only an uncomfortable bunk mattress and no kitchen, table, lounge furniture, or office. There was minimal storage, and the truck was cluttered with personal belongings and electrical cords. Drivers who owned their truck tried to personalize it and make it feel more like home; for example one driver installed hardwood flooring in the cab. The team next created a VOA (see Figure 9.15) that highlighted the opportunity for a high-valued truck experience for the driver during those 14 hours when he was not driving. After looking not only at International’s own trucks, but at all of the competitors, the team demonstrated that there was a real opportunity for a differentiating Upper Right truck that fulfilled the value proposition laid out by the VOA. During the summer, constant communication with Navistar personnel assured the team that it was focused in the right directions and gave the company new and ongoing insights to influence the overall product development.

Figure 9.15. VOA for a lifestyle-savvy, professional truck.

Next, a project course was run at Carnegie Mellon where MPD students dug further into the needs, wants, and desires of the truck driver (and other key stakeholders) and conceptualized a solution that could deliver on the value attributes (see Figure 9.16a). The design resulted in three patent applications for Navistar and highlighted several innovations: a bunk that converted to a couch, a kitchenette, an office, a separation of living and working space, and integrated storage areas. All of these features were the foundation for aspects of the forthcoming LoneStar. A further collaborative course among engineering, design, and business (the Integrated Product Development course) explored several new feature opportunities in depth. Both project courses engaged Navistar engineers and designers as critics and advisors to the process, providing insights to make sure that the resulting designs would be feasible and practical, yet also allowing the students to be innovative while uncovering new insights for the company.

Figure 9.16. Evolving concept for breakthrough truck interior from Carnegie Mellon–Navistar open innovation partnership.⁶

(Image b with permission of Navistar)

In another summer internship, MPD students working with the faculty and the Navistar team uncovered the features the market most wanted and how they could be integrated into a final feasible concept (see Figure 9.16b). The biggest risk for the design and the company was to totally remove a bunk for a second passenger; in reality, the team found that few drivers ever had a passenger overnight, and that the second bunk typically became a storage facility. Instead, the second bunk was replaced with airline cabinets to improve storage and access to the driver’s belongings. The bunk-to-couch concept then evolved into a full-size Murphy bed. A kitchenette was included—not one to cook a full meal, but one to prepare a sandwich, have a snack, or microwave a dinner. And in recognition that the driver wanted a separate place to live in, separate flooring finishes were used in the living and driving space.

Navistar was actively involved in the conceptualization process, again providing feedback to the team, but also building full-scale prototypes that were tested at a national truck show. This made for ease of transitioning the concept and design intent to Navistar, which embraced the concept and then took it through its own product development cycle to bring it to production and commercialization. The company looked at which features were cost effective and which were critical. Some of the features in the concept were removed; others were developed further and integrated into a cohesive style. Figure 9.17a shows the resulting commercial breakthrough product. At the same time, the Navistar designers created a beautiful retro-futuristic design for the exterior (see Figure 9.17b) while working in an integrated fashion with engineers to deliver what was arguably the most aerodynamic, classic “West Coast” styled truck on the planet when it was introduced as the LoneStar. The LoneStar won the American Truck Drivers first Truck of the Year Award in 2009.

Figure 9.17. Navistar International Truck Group’s LoneStar truck—interior (a) and exterior (b).

(Courtesy of Navistar)

This case study not only lends insight into the development of an innovative truck, but also demonstrates the power of open innovation through a close partnership between a company and a university. The company benefited from innovative, well-researched ideas. The students benefited from a unique real-world educational experience.

The studio divided into three teams. One team focused on understanding consumers’ various points of view. The second focused on a new system for recognizing companies that have been active in green design. The third focused on the idea of refillable packaging. The rest of this case study focuses primarily on the refillable package team.

The studio followed the four phases of the iNPD process, which was adapted to fit a ten-week quarter. The faculty team came to the project with a general opportunity gap. The POG was to understand the perceptions of sustainability of current Baby Boomers and develop a response to that insight. The student team chose to focus on the specific POG for refillable packaging for home products. The team then went to expert advisors from each participating company to get the background they needed. They conducted secondary research on the local and global issues of refillable packaging. Then when the team was functionally literate, it began to interview consumers and conduct home visits.

The goal of the home interviews was to understand consumers’ current methods of purchasing, using, and discarding/recycling existing product packaging for the home. The team also received information from the other two teams in the studio during this research phase. Figure 9.18 shows an overview of the various personas developed in the preliminary qualitative research to gain an understanding of the various attitudes about recycling in 50+ consumers. The pie chart reflects the percentage of those perceptions. This was part of the research that led to the refillable pouch solution. Faculty advisors played an important role as facilitators, as coaches, and in helping to connect to companies for additional insights and connections. At the end of the research phase, the team presented its understanding of the opportunity to the corporate representatives and to the Baby Boomer consumers.

Figure 9.18. Attitudes about recycling in 50+ consumers.⁷

The next step was to translate the research phase into initial concepts and then to conduct several cycles of conceptualization and evaluation. The refillable packaging concept was thought of as a comprehensive system. The touch point would be the product and refillable unit, illustrated in Figure 9.19. That unit had to be the beginning of a series of actions that would inspire a consumer to use a refillable solution over other conventional options. At the same time, the pouch had to be part of a manufacturing and distribution system that could easily compete in cost and time with traditional package shipping. Finally, the interface for the system was in the purchasing environment; the refillable unit had to be easy and cost effective to use, and appealing to the stores that would house them.

Figure 9.19. Refillable pouch developed for university–industry exploration of attitudes and possibilities for reusable packaging for the Baby Boomer market developed in the Live Well Collaborative.⁸

The resulting system design addressed all of those issues and created a value proposition that would allow it to compete with existing packaging solutions. Companies that produce packaged products and the retail chains that sell them are all involved in trying to fulfill the goals of the new corporate triple bottom line of people, planet, profit. The team combined that knowledge with the fact that a percentage of Baby Boomers are trying to leave a minimal footprint in their lives. These consumers have energy-saving features in their homes and usually purchase vehicles that are either electric, hybrid, or at least small cars with excellent MPG.

The touch points of the system for the consumer are in the permanent package dispenser and the refillable unit at home and in the refillable process at the point of purchase. The proposed refillable interface at the store consists of a designated area where refilling stations would be located. The design allows these stations to visually complement and not to create a stigma for being green. The refilling stations have an easy-to-use mechanism. The company system was designed with easy-to-ship modules that would efficiently store in a truck to optimize shipping and that then would be easy for the delivery person to unload and restock. The delivery person would then bring the empties back to the shipping center to be refilled.

It is often the case that one step in a system is designed as a standalone solution and, in isolation, seems to make sense. When that component of the larger system needs to be fleshed out and integrated with the other aspects of the system, making those connections is often difficult, costly, and time intensive. When creating service system solutions, all of the aspects need to be developed together. The design developed by the student team is an excellent model for helping companies to see the full process and how, in ten weeks, a team can scope out and connect all key elements of a system.

For university–industry innovation collaborations to succeed, the company needs to be engaged, yet not direct or limit the student exploration; instead, the company serves as an advisor to the process. The company needs to have the end target in mind and plan for integrating the aspects that the university explores into the overall design that the company explores, in a holistic and unified manner. The company can also learn from the university research, not only about the aspect of the product that the students develop, but also about how that research can inform the other aspects of the design that the company pursues in sequence or in parallel.

• Each breakthrough new product or service is clearly differentiated from the rest of the field.

• An opportunity for innovation partnerships between companies and universities leverages the strengths of each and contributes new capabilities to the other.

2. J. Heilemann, “Reinventing the Wheel,” Time (2 December 2001).

3. W. J. Mitchell, C. Borroni-Bird, and L. Burns, Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).

4. For more information, go to www.cmu.edu/mpd.

5. For more information, go to www.livewellcollaborative.org.

6. Students involved with concept design (a) were Bill Bernstein, Derek Blitz, Andrew Kilb, Megan Stanton, and David Wynne. Students involved with concept design (b) were Zachary Beard, Jenny Cargiuolo, and Lisa Troutman. Faculty advisors were Peter Boatwright and Jonathan Cagan.

7. Students involved with concept design were Alisha Budkie, Masha Fedorov, Katie Garber, Andrew Howell, Miguel Sanchez, Emma Sartini, Giulletta Tripoli. Faculty advisors were Chris Allen and Peter Chamberlain.

8. Ibid.