Posted on

Scenario Modeling for Personal Care Products

Many personal care products aspire to deliver both immediate results as well as prolonged effects over time.  Yet, when addressing conditions like body odor, greasy hair, or oily skin, the nature of human biology brings unique challenges to the product development process.  While modeling tools are commonly used to help develop a wide range of products, these tools can be viewed as too complicated or impractical to apply to the dynamic physiological processes and variability that are central to personal care products.  In the absence of models, comparing the merits of new ideas can be difficult, a complexity that leads to time consuming and costly physical tests as the default method for validating new technologies.

But simplified models can be practical and useful for personal care product development.  Leveraging existing scientific knowledge, along with a disciplined focus on the parameters that drive consumer value are central to a pragmatic approach to modeling.  In the context of dynamic physiological processes, three imperatives are vital to effective modeling:

Isolate Parameters of Value – do not try to model everything; stay focused on the parameters that are most important to consumer satisfaction and product purchase.  To ensure that models are informative and practical to use, it is essential to focus on main parameters of value (MPVs).  MPV’s can then be translated to the underlying physical phenomena that drive performance and factored into predictive models.  The concept is straightforward: only model what is most important.

Simulate the Biological System – build algorithms that simulate how physiological processes evolve in time while accounting for inherent product characteristics.  By characterizing the behavior of the underlying process (typically as a function of time), models can establish a baseline for measuring performance under different scenarios.  Then, as new technologies or compounds are introduced to the model, it is possible to anticipate the impact at the time of application, as well as measure the duration and profile of impact over time.

Run Relevant Scenarios – use the model to run simulations against different delivery systems, formulations, methods of use, and target area conditions.  With a baseline algorithm in place (Imperative #2), the model must also account for the variety of factors external to the target substance that impact product performance.  These factors typically can include the delivery system, consumer use practices, elements of the surrounding environment (the supersystem), and the variability of important target system parameters (e.g., hair density, hair follicle thickness).

After constructing and pressure testing the model, any number of scenarios – combinations of formulations and delivery systems under varying conditions – can be assessed.  The model can be used as a preliminary screen to test concepts and combinations of ideas quickly.  Ruling out ideas that may have minimal or adverse impact on product performance will reduce the time and cost of proof of principle testing.

With a simplified model, innovation teams can:

  • Screen different compounds to anticipate product performance under varying conditions
  • Measure the relative impact of different types of solutions prior to physical testing
  • Isolate variables that will require physical test validation
  • Set priorities for product development roadmaps.

Even though personal care products often target complex and dynamic biological systems, models do not have to be overly complex to yield powerful insights and time saving results.  Effective modeling can yield insights into product performance potential at the point of action and over time.  Running candidate solutions under different model scenarios can bring greater focus to proof-of-concept testing and reduce product development cycle times.

Download Paper

Posted on

Innovating for Safety in a Post-Pandemic World

With vaccines in distribution, there is cautious optimism that the end of the pandemic may be in view.  But pandemic-driven changes to consumer attitudes and behaviors may well endure into the future.  Over the past year, stop-gap safety measures based on existing tools and technologies led to numerous product/service solutions that were met with rapid consumer adoption.  Yet, longer term, innovations must leverage emerging technologies in order to fuel a new generation of products best suited for a post-pandemic future.

Redefining Safety

The term post-pandemic not only refers to life after Covid-19, but rather life in a world where other pandemics can and likely will arrive.  And yet, even before the arrival of the “next virus”, no one is exactly clear on the meaning of a return to normal.  What seems certain, however, is that the paradigm of the post-pandemic world will be characterized by a redefined view of safety.  Accordingly, five inter-related safety trends are likely to continue beyond Covid-19:

Distance. Creating distance between individuals – at the point of consumption, at work or when traveling, at the point of purchase. Even as shelter in place mandates are lifted, some forms of social distancing will continue to permeate everyday life for some time to come.

Contact. Minimizing (or eliminating) human contact through the supply chain – from point of origin to point of consumption. In combination with social distancing, minimum or no contact systems that remove as many human touch points as possible will be desired by customers.

Social Norms. Changing social norms and expectations that place priority on biosafety over other concerns. For example, wearing a mask into a retail establishment or a bank previously would have been viewed as socially unacceptable or ill advised.  The handshake has gone extinct, and its return is in question.

Indicators. Informing through direct or proxy indicators on the safety levels of a product or an environment. Increasingly, customers will demand evidence of safety as a prerequisite for purchase.

Mobility. Enabling safe freedom of movement – beyond the protected environment of the home or other secure locations. Technologies and products that safely liberate people from lockdowns and quarantines will dictate new specifications for “on-the-go” products and enablers.

Most products and services may not need to respond to all these trends at the same time.  But careful consideration of each trend may uncover innovation opportunities for existing products or new openings in previously unexplored markets.

First Movers

At early stages of the pandemic, many companies large and small moved quickly to new product formats and service offerings to respond to safety concerns of a panicked market.  For example – contact – Domino’s Pizza swiftly began promoting contactless delivery and others followed suit.  Or – social norms – apparel manufacturers and retailers embraced facemasks and installed a wide range of fashionable variants into their product offerings.  Companies demonstrated their will and creativity by responding to new market demand through repurposed manufacturing assets or even reconsidered abandoned business models like milk home delivery – distance.

Post-Pandemic Innovation

Most makeshift safety measures that emerged in early stages of the pandemic do not likely represent long-term solutions.  For example, manual disinfecting of surfaces in public settings became a common practice to prevent viral spread and to allay consumer fears.  This suboptimal procedural bandage provides a visual cue for safety, but it is labor intensive, inefficient, and with questionable efficacy.  Technologies that introduce new surface chemistry or self-cleaning approaches will offer new directions for innovation with widespread impact.

Innovating for safety in a post-pandemic world will require three important elements:

Redefining Safety as a Parameter of Value.  Post-pandemic success will require a disciplined examination and understanding of safety expectations.  Redefining the parameter of safety in a post pandemic world should be built along the five safety trends – distance, contact, social norms, indicators, and mobility.

Each trend must be considered at each life stage of the product, not only at the point of use.  For example, safety requirements may drive new innovations in how raw materials are sourced or how/where the product is manufactured, stored, and shipped.  Safety concerns will continue to influence where and how products are purchased and how and where they are consumed.  And safety-driven changes at earlier life stages could have implications for post-consumption parameters of value.

Reframing the Problems that Must Be Solved.  A deliberate examination of each pandemic-driven safety trend at each product life stage will provide innovators the basis for understanding deeply rooted problems that need to be solved.  Sometimes uncovering and solving contradictions across life stages will be needed.  For example, consumers want single-use disposable packaging to ensure biosafety, but also want reusable packaging to minimize waste.  Solving these contradictions is the mainstay of strong innovation teams and clear problem statement reframing sets the groundwork for technology search and solution development.

Deploying Next Generation Technologies.  Reliance on existing tools and technologies will not be sufficient to solve new problems of the future.  For example, a year ago children were sent from their classrooms to their bedrooms – distance – and then asked to continue their studies using essentially the same tools that were available before the pandemic.  In a post-pandemic world, leaders in distance learning or telehealth must deploy innovations that leverage new technologies not simply repurposed existing tools and approaches.

The Path Forward

The post-pandemic world will continue to threaten legacy business models and it will also present new opportunities for those with the foresight and skills to exploit them.  Success in a post-pandemic world will require more than temporary responses or brainstorming about the future.  For Innovation leaders, clear and sober thinking about the time to come is essential.  And it should begin with a systematic and disciplined reframing of the parameter of safety for a post-pandemic world.

Posted on

Keeping R&D Relevant During a Global Pandemic

As keeper of the company’s medium- and long-term innovations, R&D management has the opportunity and responsibility of charting the pathway forward from the current upheaval of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic has challenged each of us individually, but also collectively through a shared sense of angst, frustration, and exhaustion.  The lines have blurred between our personal and professional lives.  On the home front, patience has become a priority as we work to protect our families and our sanity.  And, professional life now involves navigating the unknown in daily routines, classifying operating norms as either essential or non-essential, and worrying about what the future will look like once things are “back to normal”.

While the Covid-19 pandemic has left some companies struggling to serve decimated markets, other companies have responded quickly to unexpected increases in consumer demand or dramatic shifts to online channels.  Marketing organizations have conscientiously crafted new messaging.  Operations departments have kept facilities running despite major disruptions to supply chains.  Across the organization – the call to action has been about the here and now.  And yet, R&D and Innovation groups have always been tasked with caring for the future.  Accordingly, R&D management at this moment faces the challenge of how to stay relevant and forward looking in a time of immediacy and extreme turmoil.

Deploying painful layoffs and furloughs may help with short-term cash needs, but such actions do not serve the longer-term strategic needs of the enterprise.  Putting intellectual assets and technical capabilities in a deep freeze reduces (or destroys) the expected return on these important assets.  Social distancing mandates have pushed most R&D employees out of their laboratories to work remotely from home.  But the challenge remains – how to most effectively deploy these capabilities to be relevant today and be prepared to succeed in an unknown future?

For R&D, assertive decision-making and action must align with three pandemic-related imperatives:

1.  Act Now. What capabilities can we deploy today to help alleviate the pain of the current pandemic?

R&D can play a key role in considering the core capabilities of the enterprise and matching them against the immediate needs of the public health crisis.  Obvious and visible examples of moving to action are manufacturers who have shifted production to ventilators, masks, or hand sanitizers.  Less obvious opportunities can be uncovered through a careful translation of the company’s intellectual assets to a new set of requirements.  R&D is well skilled on functional thinking and technology transfer – important components for matching technical competencies with current public health needs.  Further, R&D could seek opportunities to apply its skills and capabilities to help others (partners, vendors, start-ups) succeed and bring a faster end to the pandemic.

2.  Prepare for the Return. How can we best prepare to move quickly after the crisis passes?

By any measure, the crisis will pass and a rebooting of the economy will begin.  Those companies that can emerge quickly will gain advantage.  Accordingly, R&D can play a role in accelerating the pace of re-entry by ensuring now the health and readiness of the innovation pipeline.  One means of doing so is to assign knowledge work wherever possible to employees working remotely – for example through technology scouting, due diligence, conceptual design, IP landscaping, or product roadmapping. The goal is to be prepared to move to proof of principle, hands-on work quickly upon return to the laboratory.

3.  Consider Life After the Pandemic. How will life be different once the pandemic is over and what new opportunities will emerge?

While the world eagerly awaits a return to normalcy, it is almost certain that some things will never be the same.  How, when, and where products and services are consumed in the future will be influenced by changed consumer habits (and angst) created by this pandemic.  R&D organizations can use a systematic approach to anticipate the consumer norms and behaviors of a post-pandemic world.  These norms and associated parameters of value will be the basis for how customers will make purchase decisions in the future.  For example, previously, parameters related to safety may have been taken for granted by customers (“it’s important, but I assume it’s safe”).  In the future, the same product may require that safety be featured prominently and visibly (“I need physical proof that this is safe”).  Product features like safety, convenience, or personalization in a post-pandemic world may mean something totally different from what they meant a year ago.  As a result, rethinking entirely these parameters could pay handsome benefits.  And, translating these newly characterized parameters to their functional and physical requirements will open up pathways for technology search and solution development.  Reimagining customer parameters of value will be critical for differentiating products and services in a post-pandemic future.

R&D leaders can play a vital role in responsibly navigating the current health crisis and preparing companies to be successful in the changed world that lies ahead.

Posted on

Resolving Contradictions in Medical Technology

R&D professionals regularly encounter contradictory requirements as a matter of course in almost every innovation program.  Increasing the performance of one parameter is directly correlated with a decrease in performance of another important system parameter.  These contradictions can become the bane of breakthrough results if they are addressed inadequately or not at all.  Researchers often resort to optimizing the system as a useful compromise, using a highly iterative procedure.  Optimization is viewed as the means to balanced performance outcomes.

Yet, sometimes the performance compromise can relate to life-critical parameters – a scenario faced by medical device R&D scientists and engineers.  In healthcare, novel devices are expected to meet diverse and increasingly stringent requirements where dependability and performance can be life-critical.  Medical device companies use a validation plan to define process or product requirements in terms of test criteria, calibration and maintenance requirements, cleanliness requirements, particle count criteria, etc.

But what if the new product has contradictory requirements?  For example, a catheter may need high tensile strength for pressure infusion tests, but increased strength causes poor performance on mandatory flex test requirements important to guiding the device through an artery.  This contradiction – the device must be strong enough and at the same time flexible – presents a major hurdle to meeting critical validation elements.  Optimization is either not possible or would lead to a compromise with unacceptable outcomes.

Instead, contradictions can be resolved using simple tools and without compromise-based design methods.   For example, one efficient approach is to satisfy both sides of a contradiction by separating requirements in time or space and then solving for each requirement at different moments of time, or for different parts of the object, or at different sections of its non-linear characteristic.

An important step to resolving contradictions is to reframe the initial problem from the outset.  For instance, instead of trying to synthesize an optimal material for the whole catheter, a designer can specify different requirements to different sections of the device.  By listing contradictory requirements and indicating to which parts of the object / moments of time / stages of its life cycle they apply, solutions become clear and a pathway forward can be developed.  A precise and reframed problem statement is essential for developing solutions using a limited set of separation principles.

In summary, contradictions are sometimes obvious, sometimes hidden barriers that exist within most engineered systems.  Taking the time and care to unearth them, understand their nature, isolate/exaggerate specific requirements, and then solve for them – rather than optimizing against them – can spell the difference between average products and breakthrough (even life-saving) innovations.

Posted on

When Open Innovation Programs Fail

Since the introduction of Open Innovation (“OI”) over a decade ago, companies have been opening their doors to new forms of collaboration and information access.  Indeed, staying competitive in an environment of rapid technological change and evolving consumer preferences has demanded that companies rethink the traditional boundaries of the R&D center.  The logic is compelling:  gain competitive advantage by reaching beyond traditional domains, conceiving multi-disciplinary solutions, and accelerating development cycle times.

Yet, too often, Open Innovation results fall far short of the promised benefits.  But, why?  No one doubts the potential of a world of expanded (if not infinite) knowledge.  Further, sophisticated digital and networking tools have enabled almost universal access to this knowledge.

But a closer look reveals that the problems associated with OI performance often lie with the processes of how companies execute OI programs, not with the fundamental tenets of Open Innovation itself.  Indeed, experience tells us that certain practices can lead to poor OI performance:

“Big Net” Fallacy. Operating under the premise that “the bigger the net, the bigger the prize”, OI initiatives can yield too much information and not enough knowledge.

Accordingly, discipline is essential to an effective OI program that targets quality over quantity.  Time spent on precise and insightful problem framing will give positive returns in the form of less noise and fewer resources needed to process search results.

Support Staff Model. Some OI organizations have been given a mandate, but no organizational buy-in to effect change.

Traditional support staff models are designed for required or regulated functions (e.g., legal, accounting, regulatory affairs, safety).  Their costs are then allocated to the businesses they serve.  Effective OI initiatives should instead deploy a free market model to service delivery, where understanding and responding to stakeholder needs is paramount.  In-house OI services are better “purchased”, rather than allocated.

Job for a Few. Thinking of OI as someone else’s job tends to create bureaucracies that add organizational cost, without delivering results.

OI must become a mindset for all employees, not just a job for a selected few; in-house OI professionals must be facilitators, coaches, and leaders to effect organizational transformation.

Square Peg, Round Hole. Companies design broad-reaching OI strategies without recognizing and accounting for the organizational barriers that can (and will) derail the best laid plans.

Effective OI programs must have an ability to monitor, measure, and correct where necessary.  And, metrics must be aligned with business metrics to avoid misaligned incentives, which can thwart progress and prevent acceptable returns on OI investment.

Posted on

Three Traps That Can Derail Technology Scouting Efforts

In a world of seemingly infinite knowledge, technology scouting holds great promise for companies looking to discover and unlock new sources of economic value.  Innovation programs depend on scouting efforts to find enabling technologies that are actionable and pragmatic.  Yet, too often, tech scouting produces a lot of information, but no clear path for moving forward.  Low internal adoption rates may result from:

  • Too many choices and an inability to sort through mountains of information
  • A disconnect between the surfaced technologies and the problems that need to be solved
  • A mismatch between existing in-house capabilities and the resources needed to adopt and develop selected new technologies
  • Longer development time horizons that do not meet a need for near-term solutions
  • An inability to secure business commitment because of unclear (or weak) alignment with market needs.

These factors often present significant barriers for effective technology scouting programs.

 Avoiding Traps

Three common traps that hinder technology scouting efforts:

Imprecise Problem Framing. A poorly framed problem can diminish results, before the search is even underway.  In short, you cannot find what you are looking for if you don’t know where to look.  The most effect problem statements have a clear line of sight to market needs and reflect deeply rooted problems that hinder current system performance.  These deeply rooted problems become the guideposts for effective external search.  Their absence can lead to misguided efforts.

Unrealistic Expectations.  Searching for “plug ‘n play” solutions, which in many cases do not exist, can lead to disappointing results.  A pragmatic understanding of the adaptation requirements and associated time horizons is essential for effective scouting.  In addition, sometimes companies define search outcomes in terms of potential development partners.  Instead, the identification of partners should more logically come toward the end of a scouting program, once candidate technologies have been selected.  Only then will it be clear as to what type of partners to search for (academic research, equipment companies, materials providers, SME’s, CRO’s, etc).

Inability to Interpret Results.  Too much information and not enough insight leaves companies stuck on where to go next.  It is essential to develop evaluation criteria that are linked both to performance parameters and the adaptation requirements needed for adoption.  Technologies cannot be considered in isolation.  This requires a realistic (and creative) view on how the technology will manifest in a product and the problems that must be overcome to adopt it into the target system.

Gen5 adheres to three guiding principles to help clients avoid the traps that can derail effective technology scouting efforts.

Posted on

Technology Incubation – A New Model for Corporate R&D

Corporate R&D is under mounting pressure to keep pace with technological advancement that is moving at record speed and a shifting competitive landscape where innovation increasingly occurs in startups outside of the corporate R&D center. Further complicating matters, in the digital era, breakthrough innovations are as much about business model innovation as they are technical innovation.

In this environment, it is a challenge for R&D simultaneously to support the enterprise’s global businesses, while also pushing to find and deliver the “next big thing”, which in many cases would likely represent a disruption to the core business. Accordingly, today companies are looking both internally and externally for ways to remain competitive in a technology market that is no longer the exclusive domain of corporate giants.

Corporate R&D is equipped with well-developed processes, structure, and culture which have evolved over time to effectively support the core business. But, this infrastructure and the accompanying measurement systems become an albatross for R&D when attempting to develop concepts that lie outside of the company’s business model and/or beyond its core technical expertise. A modified approach – technology incubation – blending both service model and investment model techniques, will better enable corporate R&D to compete in a rapidly changing, fast-paced marketplace for commercializing (or monetizing) breakthrough opportunities.

Download White Paper

Posted on

Another Voice – Uncovering New Sources of Customer Value

If your product could speak, what would it say? If your system was hiding sources of customer value, how would you know it? If your customers could inquire about technologies beyond their understanding, what would they ask for?

The Voice of the Product (VOP) is a powerful means for uncovering new sources of customer value as targets for disruptive product innovation. Used as a complement to Voice of the Customer (VOC) techniques, VOP entails a deliberate and structured review of a product’s system and surrounding environment to reveal unexploited resources and functionality.

Because innovation is ultimately about value creation – not invention – it is essential that product innovation efforts focus explicitly on meeting the specific customer needs that drive purchase decisions. Uncovering these essential needs, or Main Parameters of Value (MPV’s), is a prerequisite for any effective innovation program. Of course, the most straightforward method for discerning market requirements is to survey target customers directly. Indeed, well-developed qualitative and quantitative VOC research techniques are commonly used for securing market insights. Yet an exclusive reliance on customer interviewing can be limiting and risks missing out on hidden opportunities. It is very difficult (if not impossible) for customers to express a desire for things that they don’t know about or don’t believe are technically possible.

To get around this problem, a diagnostic approach called Voice of the Product can be used to uncover new, unexploited sources of customer value. VOP analysis mines for unknown sources of value by “interviewing” the product (through its functions), industry (through patents), and future (through technology trends).

Product – By systematically mapping all functional interactions among a product and its surroundings, the VOP functional lens can uncover unexploited functionality that resides in a system, yet may not be expressed through current product features and functionality.

Industry – Patent analysis can be a useful proxy for uncovering additional market needs already being addressed by other market participants, as well as unearthing white spaces with minimal market activity.

Future – Finally, by considering how systems may evolve into the future, additional new sources of customer value may surface. Systems evolve predictably over time in a bid to bring more value to the marketplace. Objective technology trends propel a system’s evolution, typically along an S-curve pattern or prompting a migration to the next S-curve for a given target parameter. While these trends do not provide ready-made solutions, they are used to prompt thinking on how to uncover and consider new dimensions of innovation.

By leveraging Voice of the Product analysis, R&D can take a proactive role in setting a corporate innovation agenda that is tightly aligned with market needs and capable of fueling growth. VOP analysis can uncover latent user needs that become targets for innovation investment. Combining VOP with VOC techniques can yield a more robust innovation program.

Posted on

Systematic Innovation – The Discipline behind Breakthrough Ideas

Over the past decade, business leaders have become convinced of the need to extend the reach of R&D beyond the corporate center. However, in the chase to find externally sourced solutions, companies have repeatedly failed to realize the promised benefits of going outside. Simply running faster and “throwing more darts” is akin to hoping to win the lottery. Further, thinking of this as someone’s “job” tends to create bureaucracies that add organizational cost, without delivering results.

Even though information is becoming infinite, knowledge and insight often lags behind. Although digital technologies can enable access to resources and information in ways that were previously unheard of, this environment sometimes fuels a corporate optimism that supersedes pragmatism. Too often, searching for a solution boils down to luck and information overload becomes an unproductive drain on resources.

Realistically speaking, it is not possible to boil the ocean before running out of time, money, and patience. The challenge for the corporate R&D center is one of risk management. Delivering against return on investment requirements demands processes that are systematic and repeatable. Yet this demand for discipline must accommodate a world that is more complex, interdisciplinary, and moving at ever increasing speed. As a result, it is not about getting more chances, but rather about having better aim.

A fundamentally different philosophy and a more systematic and scientific approach are needed. Often, it is not about finding a complete plug-and-play solution, but rather identifying the best Lego blocks to fit the target system. Further, the goal is to build skills among all employees, not create jobs for a selected few.

A disciplined approach relies on specific tools for breaking down a system into its underlying root cause problems. These tools help to uncover the “right” problems to be solved and reveal insights on what altitude is most practical for solving them. Importantly, the approach reveals insights not only on where to look, but also what to look for in terms of knowledge, technologies, or solutions. And, because a common functional language is used to link the initial system with the external system, the adaptation requirements become much more visible – a critical element for commercialization.

The goal of a systematic approach is to achieve greater focus at each stage of the innovation process and uncover new opportunities to exploit – but in a deliberate, not random, way. Fundamental tenets:

  • Right Target – Understand the most important sources of customer value and maintain a relentless focus on these value parameters.
  • Right Altitude – Consider the most appropriate level for articulating the problem and applying innovation resources, e.g., at the system, component, or sub-system level.
  • Right Problem – Ensure a precise understanding of the fundamental problem that needs to be solved to improve system performance. Avoid working on surface level problems that may in fact be symptoms of deeper rooted physical problems.
  • Right Solution – Avoid the temptation to always invent. Find and adapt enabling technologies and/or leverage existing solutions that can reduce development cycle time and cost.
Posted on

The Next Generation

Given dramatic shifts in the pace and complexity of technology advancement, it has become increasingly evident that corporations need a more flexible, agile, and predictable means for identifying and capturing new, profitable growth opportunities.

Accordingly, GEN3 Partners restructured its business to better align its resources with a changing landscape in technology and innovation.  The company leveraged the IPO of Airgain, one of its home grown ventures, and the sale of its share in Healbe, another startup based on GEN3 technology, as an opportunity to recalibrate and reinvest.

As of September 1, 2016, the core of the innovation practice of GEN3 Partners began operating as a new company, Gen5 Group.   Gen5 still brings the technical creativity that has been a hallmark of its past success, but with a greater emphasis on value creation.  Leveraging its venture experience, the new company is migrating from a traditional consulting model to more of a technology incubation model for corporate clients.