Using Innovation Mapping to Encourage Breakthrough Product Development

Originally Published MDDI September 2002

DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT

Coming up with effective new-product ideas may be an art, but a number of techniques can bring form and structure to the process.

Paul Fearis

The medical device industry thrives on innovation, yet a surprisingly large number of medical companies have little understanding of how to consistently achieve it. In general, businesses tend to exercise one of three formal models of innovation. The first is essentially no model at all. In other words, innovation is left to chance rather than design. This approach will generally yield only incremental improvements. While valuable, such changes will not produce fundamental product innovation. The second model is an irregular one. Innovation is attempted only as needed. The third model, in which innovation is achieved through a defined and well-supported approach, is the ideal. It is this last model that companies interested in ongoing and effective product innovation should adopt.

For many, the front end of product development, where innovation begins, is fuzzy. A creative process, innovating seems to defy a systematic approach. In fact, however, it is quite possible to defuzz the front end of product development. Figure 1 represents the innovative product development process. In this model, we can see that the process flows logically from product and technology innovation, through customer insight, to the product requirements specification, or brief. The brief then drives the integrated (cross-discipline) product development process. This framework can help a company to develop the correct product efficiently. But where does the innovative concept come from in the first place?

INNOVATION MAPPING

Businesses often assume that the product development process begins with the product requirements specification. In fact, this document should represent the process midpoint. By the time the specification is complete, you should know exactly what is required and how it should be achieved.

The root of the product concept should be developed in a product and technology innovation process, a formal and structured engine that drives ideas forward into the development process. The current fashion is to generate innovations through brainstorming sessions. This is not a process, however, but a technique, a mechanism by which ideas are generated and captured. While it yields many ideas, it leaves a number of questions:

The answers to these questions can be found by using innovation mapping. This is a carefully structured approach that helps build confidence in the overall picture and stakeholder buy-in to subsequent decisions.

It is important to maintain a toolbox of innovation-mapping processes. These are drawn from different sources and are applied in different ways to different problems. In most cases, though, the desired outcome can be achieved through three main processes:

These processes are often supplied in this order, though not necessarily all to a single problem. Understanding the processes and applying them to the business of innovation is an important step toward taking the fuzz out of the fuzzy front end of product development.

These techniques may be applied to yield different types of output, such as new-product concepts, new business opportunities, specific technical solutions, and areas for strategic patenting. No one company will apply them in the same way, or even apply each every time they are required. To describe the three processes, this article uses the example of a simple prefilled syringe of the type used with a pump to deliver anesthetic. Keep in mind that despite the specificity of this example, this approach can easily be applied across many types of development efforts, from drug-delivery devices to disposable surgical items to durable goods.

PRODUCT-CENTRIC MAPPING

Product-centric mapping is typically used as a tool to identify product areas where innovation might be possible and fruitful. Essentially, the product is rigorously broken down into its constituent elements, and each is targeted for innovation. Typically, the product is broken down not into its mechanical components, but into its functional elements.

Having arrived at a hospital, our syringe is placed upon the shelf in the pharmacy. Try to imagine all the things that may happen to that syringe during its life cycle. It's likely that somebody will do the following:

Having defined these first branches of a tree, it's time to follow the branches a level or two farther. For example, how is the product chosen? Attributes that might influence selection include

Once a list of all of the attributes that may be influential is compiled, the next step is to consider how they may be manipulated. For example, how is the product packaged? How does it look? Does it appear sterile? Does it use color or material to attract attention to itself? Is it obvious how and in what sequence it should be assembled or used? Is its packaging integral or secondary? Does it produce clutter or waste that may become an issue regarding recycling regulations?

Inevitably, some categories cross over, but it is better to duplicate than to miss something. This process might seem somewhat obvious, but how often do you actually conceptually disassemble your product in this way, from beginning to end?

Each of these attributes leads to brainstorming for different solutions as to how manipulating the particular attribute may reveal a new angle or way of maximizing its effectiveness. Take packaging as an example. Certain features might be important to a critical-care medical device that must be easily traced or found, or a disposable item that must indicate its correct use, end of life, or a malfunction.

Let's brainstorm around just optical properties of the packaging: color, reflectivity, iridescence, color change, brightness, movement, flashing, holography, graphics, diffraction, and so forth. Let's consider how each property may be altered, added, or removed to create difference or innovation. For example, we may conclude that a color change would be a useful feature to indicate our product's storage history and longevity. In our syringe example, it might show whether the product has been stored correctly and is within its safe shelf life.

What technologies might support the inclusion of a color change? Possibilities could include

Each of these specific technologies now represents a potential product innovation. Inevitably there will be some filtering out of these possibilities based upon cost and practicality, but it's important to keep an open mind. For instance, maybe the use of thermochromics would not be an innovation, but incorporating the technology into the product at low cost would be.

The point is that using a simple process to drive innovation improves the chance of getting to a result. It helps identify all of the areas with innovation potential and is considerably more thorough than the typical brainstorming approach.

TECHNOLOGY LANDSCAPING

When product-centric mapping has identified opportunities for innovation, the time eventually comes when solutions must be sought. Let's think of solutions as growing on a tree of knowledge. There are some low-hanging fruit that may be sufficient and can be grabbed easily. The sweetest fruit, though, is higher up and will take more effort to reach.

The low-hanging fruit can be reached by means of technology landscaping. Essentially this is the rigorous application of research to a specific subject area. For instance, suppose that the syringe should contain pressure. How could it do this? What form could it take? Rather than trying to think of a single answer to this question, it's useful to consider all of the ways that pressure is contained in other industries or applications. The landscape of pressure vessel technology can be mapped by placing our problem in the middle and circling outward to capture a broad range of other solutions. The first step is to consider other types of industries, such as sporting goods, household goods, cosmetics, aerospace, automotive, chemical, hydraulics, and so on. Next, consider all the technologies each industry uses to contain pressure. The sporting goods industry might yield, for example, footballs, tennis balls, air-soled training shoes, scuba gear, bottles, helmets, masks, inner tubes, cans, aerosols, and bottles (metal, plastic, and glass).

Each of these products might lead us to a low-hanging fruit. For instance, a Nike air-sole is subject to relatively high pressures and is very resilient. Could this lead to an innovation such as, say, an anesthetic bag? The bag might be easy to dispose of, nonrefillable, and dispense its content by highly accurate low-cost peristaltic action. It could be easy to transport, store flat when finished, and reduce reliance on costly sharps-bin disposal. As a possible low-cost solution, it could improve the company's profit margins and perhaps be attractive enough to warrant a new pump technology being adopted (raising the possibility for customer lock-in). Would this constitute innovation? Yes. Would it be acceptable in the marketplace? Maybe not. But the point here is the method, not the plausibility of this one train of thought.

Admittedly, there is nothing remarkable about this technique. Indeed, engineers have been using it for years. They must simply keep applying the process consistently, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, if only for the sake of business efficiency.

MECE MAPPING

So far, we have considered a process to help identify innovation opportunities and a technique designed to gather easy solutions. The final challenge is how to identify the less accessible concepts and how to ensure that the process is thorough.

The MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) process aims to fully define the idea space within which a solution or series of solutions must exist, bounded by applicable parameters. These parameters may be physical limits (e.g., those of the laws of science) or market driven (e.g., those determined bounded by business or market opportunity, access, practicality, and so forth). The chosen parameter must then be categorized thoroughly along an axis and cross-referenced by an opposing parameter in order to form a matrix space of possibilities.

Choosing matrix axes is a difficult and skilled task. It is also somewhat iterative. One must build multiple matrices and test them with brainstorming sessions to see whether the rules or scope of the matrix may be broken. If so, then the problem has not yet been deconstructed to a level basic enough to allow exhaustive investigation. This may take more than one attempt.

To make this clearer, let us return to the example of the prefilled syringe and to an area of potential innovation described by the product-centric mapping process: How could the syringe store data about itself and communicate this data to ancillary equipment such as a syringe pump?

One way to consider our syringe data storage question might be to categorize all of the data storage methods that one might apply:

It is unlikely that a method other than one of these would be applied to storing data on a syringe. This gives us one axis.

Now the opposing scale must be defined. In this case it might be the amount of data to be stored. Generically, this might translate into number of bits of data stored. These data might include product identity, expiry date, batch/lot, manufacturer, source, concentration, and a check-sum. How innovative might the new feature be? It could communicate data about contents to, for example, a syringe pump, enabling a specific therapeutic modality. Or it might record data back onto the syringe about its use, such as when, how, and upon whom it was used. Further subdividing a simple 'amount of storage' scale into read-only and read-write, it becomes possible to be specific about data storage needs: 1, 8, 64, or 128, with read-write ability, scaling the numbers to bound and probably exceed the projected range. (It is unlikely that 20 Gbyte of information will need to be stored.)

The result is a matrix with the data-storage method plotted against the size and accessibility of that data. Plotting all of your products and those of your competitors into this matrix yields the results shown in Figure 2. This matrix immediately reveals a picture of where existing products lie within the invention space. Not surprisingly they are somewhat clustered, and indicate considerable incremental development around the comfort zone.

Next plot your existing development pipeline, including those ideas that are already being worked on. Inevitably this gives a slightly broader spread, as shown in Figure 3. This should be followed by some general brainstorming sessions to further populate the matrix. This can be a good time to involve nonengineers in order to cast the net a little wider. The resulting matrix might look like that shown in Figure 4.

What you have now is a well-populated matrix that exhaustively captures and cross-references a range of ideas. The value of the MECE approach now becomes evident; you can see which areas are densely populated and which sparsely. Low-hanging fruit can also be plotted, which will tend to further fill the dense areas. You can see where your existing products and those of your competitors lie in the idea space. This will help identify areas where you may run into competition and strong intellectual-property protections.

Armed with this matrix, you can now hold specific, targeted brainstorms aimed at populating the opportunity space outside of the densely populated boxes. These brainstorming sessions will be clearly focused and bounded, and so easier to run efficiently. This enables you to populate the matrix more evenly and drives your thinking into previously uncharted territory, probably to where the sweetest fruit, the true innovations, may be found.

It is important to exercise a strategic view of matrix population. There may well be some boxes where it is simply not worth going. That is fine, as long as it is clear what they represent and that there are good reasons to discard them.

CHOICES, CHOICES

At this point, you have created a populated matrix or matrices that fully describe the problem and idea space. Now you must begin to consider which ideas or categories of ideas should be taken forward into next-level engineering (probably proof of principle). This can be done in many ways. The optimal approach is that of a 'balanced portfolio,' wherein a range of concepts are pursued. These may range from 'low risk, low reward' to 'high risk, high reward.' The matrix tends to suggest this categorization, since it reveals where population is dense (and, by inference, invention is easy or prevalent) and where it is not. Looking at it in this way, one might think, "if we could make a solution work in that box, it would be the Holy Grail, but it would take us two to three years," or, "that's pretty straightforward; we could roll that out in six to eight months."

A space on the matrix may be very attractive but sparsely populated. In such cases, help may be required, perhaps from external experts or a university. These outside sources with specific technical expertise may deliver some new ideas that had not been generated in-house.

The true value of the process now becomes clear. You can make decisions with confidence that you have been thorough, that you understand where all of the opportunities must lie and where your competition must also be looking for invention. This confidence can now be communicated effectively to management or other functions, such as engineering or marketing. You have reasons to back your decisions, can demonstrate your thoroughness, and have probably been highly creative.

At this stage of the process, it is valuable to begin considering intellectual-property issues. The matrix helps identify where ideas are likely to already be protected. Likewise, it reveals where protections are less likely to exist, and where your firm may claim more broadly and own a bigger protected space. This in turn may lead to 'strategic patenting' of ideas in order to lock out competition or simply to buy development time and breathing space.

Just as this process can help map intellectual property space and protect ideas, it can also help in other nontechnical areas, such as justifying development plans or generating strategic product plans. MECE can be used to help identify new markets, examining many different axes, incorporating product types, channels, target markets, target users, and so on. This can help companies decide where to diversify. Essentially, MECE is an audit tool for innovation due diligence.

CONCLUSION

Innovation is the lifeblood of a thriving medical products business. With this in mind, we have reviewed a series of techniques that can help drive a reliable innovation process and generate an innovation pipeline. The benefits of this approach will include overcoming syndromes that stop innovation, encouraging creativity, and providing a structure to guide your thinking and ensure its efficiency. Having gone through this process, you can then more readily justify decisions, persuade others to move ahead, and forge an effective strategy for protecting your ideas. Ultimately, you will be better able to observe the essential credo for a manufacturer: to make money out of technology, not technology out of money.

Paul Fearis is vice president of Genesis Medical Technology (Owings Mills, MD).

Copyright ©2002 Medical Device & Diagnostic Industry