One of the most valuable stages of our innovation process is being able to challenge whether our business leaders have actually got the right end of the stick. These problem definition exercises usually precede design or testing, to make sure our time is well spent.

Thing is, this only works if what’s being bought to the lab is a problem - not, for example, if it’s an opportunity.

These concepts, largely but not exclusively based in new technology, don’t really need such a dedicated ‘deep dive’ into what we’re trying to achieve, especially as the opportunity for refining and tailoring the products or services are minimal - they’re not ours.

What matters more is exploring whether there is a place for such technology/new thinking in Bromford, and we should be able to do this fairly rapidly. Enter the Quick Hitter concepts.

We’ve realized these get bogged down in trying to match new ideas to existing problems. It’s not exactly progressive either..

Instead, we’ll act as an accelerator to get solutions that meet the following criteria evaluated quickly, rather than talking ourselves out of things:

Quick Hitter Criteria:

  • Currently, we could do without, i.e. they are nice to have products/services/partnerships - but that's not to say they don't support a future business model

  • There is no immediate business need for them

  • The concepts have arrived without a business sponsor OR everything is still dead uncertain

  • The products/services/partnerships should still align with our objectives - i.e. unlocking potential, independent living, 2.0 autonomy, supporting localities etc.

  • We want to see whether a certain idea or product is worthwhile at an individual level or generate interest around a future way of working.

Again, the succcess of our 'Quick Hitter' stage is a test in itself - so we'll be reporting back on whether or not this has helped our more vague concepts gain a foothold, sooner. 

@ThomasHartland

Comment