Dyson Case Study
Dyson has created a highly profitable business through the use of a series of processes, systems and practices that increase the probability of innovative new products being produced. It is insightful that the founder and CEO concentrates on finding those household items that aren't working well and dramatically improving their ergonomics, performance and value. This takes a unique approach to innovation that is not easily replicated or imitated by competitors, and further ensures the long-term success of the enterprise. His decision to employ engineers directly out of university further exemplifies the mindset of an innovator as he is deliberately creating a culture that seeks to challenge the status quo and how the majority of design and engineering professionals see the world. Speaking of this dynamic, Sir James Dyson commented that he seeks out those that don't see the world linearly, but rather are free thinkers. What's impressive is how the culture of the company is deliberately designed to create a culture of disruptive innovation, from the selection of employees to the flat, open structure of the offices.
Accentuating this approach to creating and sustaining an innovative culture is the inclusion of all production, supply chain, sourcing and service, in short the entire value chain, in the context of innovative thought and action. His approach to having feedback session is more than just creating a collaborative, teamwork-driven environment, it is breaking down the barriers that hold designers and engineers back from trusting each other. These are the foundational elements of how Dyson is encouraging innovation and creativity in its business. The mindset of supporting a "fail fast" mentality has many allegories to the success of disruptive innovation created and made commercially successful by Apple and Google as well
(Dedrick, Kraemer, Linden, 2010) (Steiber, Alange, 2013). This "fail fast" mentality can be traced to Stanford University and the entrepreneur mindset that dominates that university, as can be seen in the many start-ups which were created by graduates of the engineering, sciences and business schools there (Gopalakrishnan, Kessler, Scillitoe, 2010). Using the frameworks of innovation at Apple and Google to analyze Dyson provides useful insights into how this business can be improved even more. While Dyson is...
Apple's approach to innovation varies significantly than Google, in that the former concentrates on creating a concentric process that provides inclusion of specific concepts and ideas over time, providing ample opportunity for new product concepts to fail (Gopalakrishnan, Kessler, Scillitoe, 2010). Insiders have remarked that the Apple innovation process aligns closely with the agile programming methodology of continually creating improvements and enhancements, then testing them with customers and customer-related panels. This "fail fast" mentality is expected and considered an indispensable aspect of the culture in Silicon Valley; indeed it is a sign of a start-ups' maturity and seriousness about growing (Gopalakrishnan, Kessler, Scillitoe, 2010). Failure is a "bade of honor" in the Apple culture in that it shows a given product concept was tested far enough to push the boundaries of a given products' design over time (Dedrick, Kraemer, Linden, 2010). Apple's approach to concentric development and the targeting of gross inefficient technologies ripe for consolidation is how company insiders and analyst typify the approach Steve Jobs took to innovation. The iPod, iPad and iPhone were not created entirely through the development of a single "eureka!' moment but through an assiduous process of looking at how the form factors and functionality could be quickly created and marketed at a highly profitable gross margin (Gopalakrishnan, Kessler, Scillitoe, 2010). Steve Jobs did create the concentric-based approach to innovation that includes an agile development methodology as its foundation; he also brought a very discipline approach to evaluating the potential profitability of a given innovation. This is in marked contrast to many other inventors in the silicon valley who were more interested in sales first and didn't concern themselves too much with gross contribution margins between 60% to 80%, yet…
