NoDesign

Bruce Nussbaum and Internet News responds to the need to rethink innovation. The design is called

The designer and columnist Bruce Nussbaum, Business Week, is an advocate of transformation , a concept called to replace him as one of innovation. "innovation is dead in 2008, killed by overuse, misuse , narrow-mindedness, the manipulation and the inability to evolve, "says the designer." This crime was committed by entrepreneurs, consultants, vendors, advertisers and journalists who have degraded and devalued the idea of innovation by merging with the change, technological change, design, globalization, economic forecasting and everything that seems "new". "

The transformation in response to changes in society

The death of innovation is linked to our obsession with measurement and an increasing demand forecasts in an unpredictable world, says Bruce Nussbaum. However, innovation does not know to guide us face an uncertain future and tormented. The INNNOVA was low both as a tactic and as a strategy to address social and economic turmoil of recent months. And Bruce Nussbaum to defend a concept deeper, more solid in his view: the transformation.

"The transformation captures the major changes already underway and may help us to guide us in the future. It implies that our life will become more organized around platforms and digital networks that will replace large organizations that we know. "Our newspaper is increasingly made up of trade within ecosystems, of "global networks of trust" such as iTunes, Facebook, Zipcar ... For the editorialist, the notion of transformation takes better account of these changes that the concept of innovation precisely because it involves a transformation of our education systems, care, transportation, political representation ... "Transformation focuses on people, network design and systems to satisfy their desires and needs. It is based on the humanization of technology rather than impose the technology to humans. It addresses the uncertainties with a methodology that creates opportunities for new situations. "The term" transformation "finally accepted the idea that we are in a post-consumption, however defined by two groups of economic actors who are the champions : manufacturers and consumers. Speaking of transformation rather than innovation can address the creativity of a "new" society in which we are all both producers and consumers of the value.

"In the past, the economic value was generated by the transaction", explains the designer. "Today, it is generated by interaction (...). Monetizing interactions is the heart of an economy based on social media.

In a second note , the editorial returns to the subject and explains why the concept of transformation is of greater value than innovation. According to him:

• 1. Our institutions do not work. They are broken. The companies, investment banks, the health system, schools, transportation, politics ... The current crisis accelerates the break with most of our institutions.
• 2. Digital technologies deprive the intermediation role of each organization, erode the role of the middle classes, ranging from college professors to journalists, hospital administrators to politicians. The shape of our institutions is radically changing.
• 3. The ability to create and participate moves the masses. Digital technologies give everyone the tools to tinker, to design and shape what they learn, with which they play or work. "Crafts" is back in a way that we are only beginning to understand.
• 4. Innovation as a concept is inadequate to cope with these changes. Innovation is rare, incremental, small, common. Innovation involves change that is. The transformation involves creating what is new. What we need today is precisely to create a huge amount of completely new things.
• 5. The design is the answer. I use the term "conversion" to grasp the immensity of the task ahead, but the tools, methodologies, philosophy of the mission are in the field of design. "

It is always innovating, so that no changes once

For designer Idriss Mootee , Bruce Nussbaum buried rather quickly the concept of innovation. If it agrees with the fact that the term innovation is squandered, for him it is naive to believe that any innovation would not require radical transformation. "As individuals, organizations change continuously in response to evolution of their markets and the arrival and departure of key individuals within them. In a large company, these changes are slow and appear unnoticed. But sometimes a company must change more quickly than this gradual change can do: she needs a break with the past, accelerating the pace of change, a transformation. "And they've done that emphasizes Does taking the example of Apple or IBM. Still, the problem - as pointed out another famous designer commentary, Peter Jones - is that a company can not be transformed forever. "Transformation is a concept that has followed the restructuring of many large organizations (...). The problem is that once an organization has completed its transformation, it is not able to do so again. "

The design by the processing ( processing design ) is not new. It has existed since 2004, notably through the work of the British Design Council. . It is to create lasting behavioral changes and desirable for individuals, systems and organizations by putting man at the heart of the process as does participle we were talking about it recently , said Putting People First . The designer Nate Archer , comment, is also critical, although it agrees with the concept of transformation. For him, a new word for "new innovation" is not a solution, especially as the concept seemed very close to the Design Thinking , which involves applying a creative process to any type of problem. "Whether we call this transformation, innovation or design thinking, I think all we express a feeling that things are not working as they are. Rather than argue about the definitions of these terms, we should perhaps validate new methodologies and better show business can contribute to these new approaches. "

Do we need any change?

As the designer says Peter Jones, means that the transformation of social innovation projects or consolidation of public services or the "design of the organizational capacity to innovate", we talk about design 3.0 or anything else, innovation means that we do, so that the transformation in part eludes us. "Change for Change is costly and disruptive. From a commercial point of view the transformation is not a strategy, as noted by John Kotter the great guru of the study of leadership and change at the Harvard Business School in his books. A body turns, as it is or is about to die. But is that happening so far in transforming growth strategy? Perhaps - but the extreme strategies can also kill the business as explained by the theorist of innovation Michael Raynor. (...) Transform is not a design strategy, it is the result of a strategy inspired by the survival (...). "

Still, when organizations or companies do not innovate or more, although the transformation seems the only possible solution to prevent their multiple influenza definitely not the system.

Hubert, I was sure this post will not escape.

You turn around but it happens that company exchanges and (of) transformation (s). Other values, economic values of other productions, other projects, that of existence of which we speak here.

The company applies the transformation of people and systems of objects and services and has been reviewed by Von Hippel and his self-fabricated, by spirits hackers, hackers and other real funky crafts producer (See Make magazine, processing,) useful, desirable or just interesting for those involved (empowerment). It also applies to our frameworks, our way of living and lead the world.

Innovation is not the creation or invention and it is the dimension which it lacks. Transform is good, but it is not creating bad either.

Bruce N (not designer) talks about re-invention and that all its merit.

Or otherwise change but why and for what direction? How goes you one of the world has a world quantitative qualitatiff.

We are not far from the expensive to change policy or failure of Nicolas S

The design as political, strategic