What frameworks and models are essential for guiding your product innovation process?

Yes, the innovation funnel is a good tool. Important at the small end of the funnel to clearly spell out the criteria leading to passing on to the next phase.

"Brainstorming" with key stakeholders will fetch more number of ideas (Ideation Stage of Product Life Cycle). Pass through the "Innovation funnel" with detailed and elaborated discussions on each idea about its feasibility, Cost, Time to Market, Resource requirements, alignment to Organizational goas & strategy (Product-Organisation fit) will bring more clarity and establish the direction to whether purse these ideas (few from many) to become reality.

Before we get to the innovation funnel, it is so critical to align on the innovation objectives. I have been in many cases where cross functional stakeholders have a different expectation from innovation and before we get into the funnel, it is critical we align all stakeholders on why we are innovating. Innovation objective should not be too broad or too specific. It should not be vague. Once this is done, we bring on the Innovation Funnel 100% yes!

While the Innovation Funnel provides a structured approach for idea generation and development, it has limitations compared to the Jobs to be Done (JTBD) framework. The Funnel often employs a trial-and-error approach, lacking a rigorous mechanism for validating ideas against actual customer needs. This can lead to wasted resources and higher risks. JTBD, however, starts with a data-driven understanding of customer "jobs," ensuring that each innovation is precisely targeted to meet customer outcomes, thereby reducing risk and increasing the likelihood of market success.

The purpose of this funnel is to follow a structured process to de-risk initiatives. Don't invest a lot of time and resources while not knowing whether you are solving the right problem, the right way. This process is broken down in phases during which the team defines the target customer and takes initiative to conceive a deep understanding of their pain points and needs. This should lead them to thinking of potential solutions which then again are validated with the target customer.

Design thinking is a solid framework that founders should lean on to guide their innovation process. However, don't get stuck on the idea that the five phases must always be followed in a linear sequence. In practice, it's almost always more iterative than linear. After testing, you might go back to the ideate or take a quick step back to prototyping. Be adaptable and flexible.

"Open mind set" is required to incorporate the right feedback in addressing the customer/end user challenges through the product solution for the iterative approach.

Love Design Thinking but we also must integrate Design Doing. A lot of times the feedback I hear is design thinking is too fluffy, unicorns on the clouds type of an approach. We can improve this perception by integrating a critical step into the process which is to filter the ideas already before prototyping and testing. This will reduce costs down the line but also increase the chances of success since ideas have already been monitored against success criteria.

The Design Thinking approach emphasizes empathy and creativity but has notable limitations compared to Jobs to be Done (JTBD). Design Thinking starts with understanding customers, it often employs broad ideation and prototyping phases that can dilute focus and consume resources. However, I think Design Thinking can complement the JTBD framework. Using JTBD, identify and quantify the unmet needs and use Design Thinking to brainstorm and prototype possible solutions that fulfil these outcomes. This leverages the strengths of both approaches: JTBD's data-driven insights for identifying the 'what' (customer needs), and Design Thinking's creative processes for determining the 'how' (solutions).

The only problem I find with any innovation tool that starts with the amalgamation of ideas leaves a lot to chance and skill of innovators. It's like the superhero of the innovation universe. Need to empathize with users? It swoops in with its cape of compassion. Facing a villainous problem? It summons its brainstorming superpower. But remember, even superheroes have their kryptonite. Without the right mindset and team, Design Thinking is just a hero without its suit.

I'm a big believer in lean startup, even though its critics claim it starts with guesswork (the MVP). Founders should absolutely lean on their domain expertise and unfair advantages to focus on a market they already understand to a certain degree. And then decide if additional customer research or a prototype is the fastest path to learning something new. Early prototypes aren’t simply wild guesses; they’re often a well-informed hypothesis rooted in knowledge and personal experience. By integrating a JTBD approach in the early stages, Founders can refine their hypothesis and save time, money, and energy.

MVP is the standard and best way for Build-Measure-Learn-Update loop for product refinement and reaching closer to customer needs.

The Lean Startup methodology, pioneered by Eric Ries, is a strategic approach tailored for startups navigating the uncertainties of the business landscape. Rooted in principles from lean manufacturing, it emphasizes the "Build-Measure-Learn" loop. Startups are encouraged to release minimal viable products (MVPs) quickly to gauge market response. Based on real-world feedback, they then decide to pivot or persevere. While it offers a structured path to validate business hypotheses and reduce wasted efforts, it's crucial to remember that its success hinges on rigorous application and continuous adaptation to market dynamics.

The Lean Startup is a terrific tool to go from zero to 1 customer and also supports some scale up activities. GE used the Lean Startup as the foundation for its FastWorks innovation framework as it allowed to accelerate the go-to-market (GTM) analysis, which is one of the strengths of this framework.

The business model canvas is an excellent replacement for a detailed business plan in the early days. It offers a simple visualization and alignment tool that avoids the deep dive and wasted efforts of a business plan that will be obsolete in a few months time for most startups. I also recommend considering Ash Maurya's lean canvas and Jim Kalbach's JTBD Canvas.

Developing a product is an uphill task, at the same time communicating the product highlights, benefits to various stakeholders is key for product's success. The business model canvas paints the complete picture about product, that will help marketers to clearly highlight the differentiation, benefits, USP of the product w.r.to the competitor products.

We us the BMC as a tool to track the development and testing of business models. We utilize the canvas in a systematic way to evaluate and refine each of the building blocks as we work with various companies at our cohort program. Using BMC in this context is highly advantageous because it promotes a structured approach to business development and testing. We leverage and Agile Design Thinking + Lean Startup Approach test and learn with the BMC as the score card

The Business Model Canvas (BMC) is a powerful tool for innovation, offering a high-level overview of how a product fits within the market. However, its broad strokes can overlook the granular, iterative details of product development and user experience crucial for innovation. It's excellent for initial stages, a starting block, not a detailed roadmap, and it should be one of many tools in an innovator's kit.

While the stage-gate model can bring structure and discipline to the innovation process, for early-stage and growth-stage companies it is far too rigid. Most startups will find that a more fluid approach plays to their strengths, especially when navigating rapidly changing markets and technologies. Enterprises following too closely to a strict stage-gate process is exactly the sort of hamstringing that allows nimble startups to catch up and catch their bigger competitors off-guard.

The stage-gate model is likely more appropriate in mature enterprises that have: 1. Significant hardware component to the innovations that have a high cost to develop and test 2. Have numerous innovation/R&D projects in flight at any given time and need a means of keeping product development costs under control with go/no go checkpoints by assuring routine checkpoints to review progress and prioritization of further investments.

The stage gate model has proven highly effective in mature, stable industries. However, as we venture into complex, uncertain markets, embracing Agile methodologies becomes imperative. Agile offers distinct advantages when dealing with uncertain industries or products. In mature industries, where product requirements are stable, and market dynamics are predictable, the stage gate model shines. It allows for meticulous planning and thorough analysis at each stage, ensuring quality and precision in product development. However, the business landscape is evolving rapidly, and we find ourselves navigating increasingly complex and uncertain markets. In such environments, the rigid, sequential nature of the stage gate model can be a hindrance.

I also think there is a difference here between more established companies vs. start ups / scale ups. Stage gate model is great but I also see companies creating un-necessary bottlenecks in their process delaying all innovation. Smaller companies do this more efficiently in a way. It's like they follow the same model but streamlining it so they can move faster. Agility is so overlooked while following this model.

Innovation culture... This is the one overlooked aspect when it comes to Product Innovation. Companies who successfully innovate have this culture engraved, so innovation comes natural. It's not only what they do, it's how they do innovation. More companies could use this when building the right frameworks and models to innovate better.

There are two other innovation frameworks that are popular at MIT: - Disciplined Entrepreneurship, which provides a simple methodology to go from idea to product. The framework is rigorous yet practical and provides multiple tools to help entrepreneurs and innovators. - The "Doers manifesto" by professor Luis Perez Breva. This framework provides a deep and very comprehensive process to take an idea and transform it into a business innovation, based on years of experience in taking MIT technology to the market.

One of the standout models in the realm of product innovation is the Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) framework. Rooted in a deep understanding of the customer, JTBD shifts the focus from the product itself to the core tasks, or "jobs", that customers hire products or services to achieve. Instead of starting with a product idea and trying to fit it to a market, the JTBD methodology encourages us to start with the customer, delving into their innate desires and tasks they're trying to achieve.

The business model canvas is mentioned in this article, but I'd always recommend starting with it's sister framework, the Value Proposition Canvas. This helps you identify each customer segment, their pain points, both physically and emotionally, and how your product/solution can address those. As always, it's a process, but one which helps with focused thinking and more importantly to keep the customer and problem definition front of mind at all times.

Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) is a framework that shifts focus from products to the underlying "jobs" customers hire them to do. Rather than just asking "What product should we build?", JTBD delves deeper: "What fundamental problem is the customer trying to solve?" By framing innovation in terms of jobs and their associated outcomes, JTBD offers a clearer understanding of customer motivations. It's not just about features; it's about fulfilling core needs. In a crowded market, understanding your customer's real "job" can be a game-changer. I also feel that despite being one of the most promising frameworks, it hasn't been marketed very well.