Boundary Interface State Design – a systematic approach to innovation

If innovation is a better approach than invention to product design, engineering, or business development, then the next question is how best to innovate and design in practice. Moreover, how do you innovate systematically that avoids or minimises the limitations of the inventor approach. (See Innovation vs Invention – a better approach for design development)

This article presents a systematic approach and process for innovation that seeks to avoid the pitfalls of the inventor mindset approach to design.?

●

Over my professional career I have worked in various industries applying design practice concepts and techniques in my daily work, whether it was for product design, engineering design, consulting, or business development. Whilst practicing as a design engineer I spent considerable time reading and reviewing various design techniques and design processes.

More recently my focus has changed along with my career to team leadership, business strategy and business development. This change in my career has come at a time during which ‘design theory’ has gained traction in its notional application to developing and improving business functions and operations.

When change is deemed necessary - be it for a product, service, or business function - the inventor zeitgeist prevails, and typically an individual is tasked with developing (inventing) an improvement or creating something ‘new’. When so tasked, we dream big and, on a (figurative or actual) clean sheet of paper, we invent. With no system in place this is the obvious approach. Furthermore, with no systematic means to evaluate or assess the ‘invention’, we then proceed to prototype and manufacture the whole 'invention' in its entirety. This often leads to problems with realisation, scope creep, delays, cost blowouts, missed KPIs, and often project abandonment. If you have worked in design, I am sure you have seen this take place and most likely participated, I know I did.?

So, what is the underlying cause for this less than thorough approach which often leads to poor design outcomes, or outright failure. As discussed in “Innovation vs Invention – a better approach for design development” I propose that the inventor mindset is largely to blame and what instead is required is an innovation mindset. However, of itself an innovation mindset does not necessarily improve the likelihood of success. So how can we innovate in a systematic way that is less prone to error and wasted effort and allows us to test ideas more effectively.

What is required is a structured and systematic approach to design innovation. A process that can be applied independent of the specific application. A process that is repeatable and allows for trial and error whilst at the same time reducing wasted design development effort thereby increasing the likelihood of successfully ‘changing something that already exists in a new or novel way’ such that that it improves upon what already exists.

An answer to this is an innovation process I call Boundary Interface State Design.

What is Boundary Interface State Design?

Boundary Interface State Design is a structured or systematic approach to identifying opportunities for design innovation. It aims to provide a framework to systematically explore the potential innovation space. Whilst conceived for the purpose of product design it can also be used to guide the development and innovation of business services and/or operations.

Boundary Interface State Design (BISD) focuses on function over form (i.e. form follows function). It builds upon the core idea that design development should be seen as a continuum and not an independent or isolated process. In other words evolution and not revolution. BISD provides a better approach than typical brainstorming techniques increasing the likelihood of successful product and business development through the review, adaptation, and evolution of existing functionality and supporting features.

BISD provides a structured means to decomposing products (or business functions) to better enable the identification of opportunities and priorities for design development. It encourages use of a standard set of neutral nomenclature to guide comprehensive exploration of the potential design space. A further benefit of this structured approach is that it also provides a better and more effective way of identifying and prioritising sub-system elements for prototyping and testing, providing a more effective means to validate proposed changes or innovation.

The Boundary Interface State Design approach is itself not unique or an ‘invention’. Rather it builds upon traditional engineering and design practices, leverages concepts from system architecture design used in software development, and evolutionary theory, to provide a systematic approach to innovation.

In summary the BISD process follows the following key steps:

System Boundary and Functional Decomposition

The first stage of Boundary Interface State Design is to take an existing product (or system[1]) and systematically break it down, or decompose it, in terms of its functionality by drawing a boundary around the product then further sub-system boundaries. This process is repeated until the product’s functions, external and internal, are sufficiently decomposed such that ideally any one boundary encapsulates a singular function and associated existing product features that enable that function.[2]

Functions can be thought of in terms of static or active interactions with physical objects or product features, the transfer of information or material, enabling a change of state, etc. Product features are the physical things (or form) that exist to enable or facilitate the function.

It is not essential that the drawing of the first boundary (or system boundary) encapsulates the whole product. However, the first boundary should adequately encircle sufficient functionality such that if innovation is targeted to a particular sub-system interrelated functionality or opportunity for interoperability or exchange with other sub-systems is not missed or ignored.

Furthermore, whilst it not essential to fully decompose the product to a single degree of freedom[3], decomposition should be sufficient such that interface manipulation/transformation, prototyping and testing of any proposed changes can be done in a way so that interference or noise from other functions within the boundary is minimised or eliminated. If this is not the case, then the product should be further decomposed.

Note breaking down or decomposing a product in this way is not the same as disassembling a product or producing a hierarchical bill-of-materials. Remember function not form should drive the decomposition.

The following figure provides a generic representation of a decomposed product and a high-level example of the overall process. Obviously for more complex products consideration can be given to starting at a sub-system level.

[1] For brevity, the term ‘product’ is used however it may alternatively be considered to mean service, business, business function, or business operation, etc.

[2] This approach can be considered analogous to System Architecture Design used in software development, which is similarly described by the Unified Modelling Language (UML) standards

[3] “In physics, the degree of freedom (DOF) of a mechanical system is the number of independent parameters that define its configuration” (Degrees of freedom (mechanics), Wikipedia)

Interface State Identification and Prioritisation

With the product sufficiently decomposed, sub-systems and associated function (or functions) are then defined by its interface or interfaces and its state. An interface is either the functional interaction that occurs at or between sub-systems, or that occurs at the environmental interface. The state is the sub-system’s condition related to the function at a given time.

For the purpose of innovation and exploring the design space it is beneficial to use generic or neutral nomenclature to describe features or attributes of the interface and state (as defined in Table 1 below). This better allows the interface to be described in terms that, in so far as reasonably practicable, are dissociated from the underlying product form that currently enables the function. Using a common set of feature or attribute descriptors to describe the interface, as provided in the tables below, is preferable as this makes applying transformations conceptually easier, and less prone to selection bias caused by the existing form.

A function is therefore ideally described by a singular interface (and related state) and is described in generic terms of what it does across the boundary (i.e. from one sub-system to the next).

A further benefit of decomposition is that the bounded function or functions and associated features are now usefully grouped, not only for further review, but also for prioritisation of design development, targeted prototyping, and testing, etc. Prioritisation can take the form of identifying core and non-core sub-systems, establishing which aspects of the product may lend themselves to greater or lesser innovation, comparative analysis to competitor products; etc.

For complex products (and business operations) full decomposition is unlikely to be realistic or pragmatic given the typical time and cost constraints imposed on design development and so selecting and prioritising sub-system(s) will be necessary. However ideally the overall process starts with the first boundary encapsulating the whole product, but then only partially decomposes sub-systems not being considered for innovation.

Interface State Manipulation

Once the product is decomposed it is time to apply an objective set of manipulations to the interface and state of the selected sub-systems.

Each sub-system, its interface(s) and state are reviewed and analysed against a set of potential changes or transformations to the interface(s) and state. Changes or manipulations can be thought of as evolving or adapting the interface or state, by considering an objective (or impartial) set of potential changes and whether they are positive, negative, or neutral in their affect. The result of this step may (or may not) lead to identifying opportunities for innovation.

The purpose is to systematically explore all the potential changes that may innovate the product in some way. The guiding principle is not to start with a blank piece of paper and sketch ideas. Rather by manipulating the interface and/or state (i.e. the generic form of the underlying function), novel changes can be explored and prioritised for further review and design development.

In applying potential transformations it can be useful to pose the change as a question: What if we changed the … of this function to this …? How could we replace this … function with this … technology?; etc. At this stage avoid asking ‘why’.

The following table provides a set of objective product related interface state descriptors and transformations that may lead to innovation. Whilst some terms will arguably create duplication it is important to provide a comprehensive but not overwhelming number of interface state transformations to ensure comprehensive analysis of the potential innovation space. Secondly the list is ordered so that the broader conceptual prompts are considered first before moving onto more detailed or specific prompts.

For reviewing business functions, services, or operations, due to the expected complexity of trying to define the whole business the first boundary should encircle the business function or functions targeted for review and development. However it is still beneficial to describe the top-level system boundary in order to identify and delineate between internal interfaces and external interfaces that connect outside of the business. Depending on the first boundary decomposition may still be beneficial and necessary.

As generally we are considering non-physical functions, services, or operations a reduced list of transformations is used as a starting point. Aspects of the business operation or function including those with associated physical products (documents, presentations, reports, etc) can still be reviewed against the longer list of Product Transformations.??

An extension to this process is to apply multiple iterative or sequential manipulations and explore how the interface could evolve through multiple transformations.

Once all the transformations are considered the set of potential innovations can be analysed and reviewed. Opportunities for innovation can be prioritised for further analysis and design development.

In more traditional terms this is the ‘creative’ phase. It is the phase of design where novel ideas for change are conceived and conceptually tested, albeit based on a set of rules that prompt comprehensive exploration of the innovation space, as opposed to the blank sheet approach.

Understandably this process can be time consuming, so it is important to:

1.?????Be methodical

Do not rely on experience and skip. Whilst it may be that certain transformations are intuitively not applicable, or easily dismissed, consider each manipulation, even if only briefly. Alternatively undertake the process in stages with a quicker first pass then a more detailed second pass exploration.

2.?????Do not start detail design (yet)

Possibly the hardest part of the process for any designer or engineer is to not start designing yet. The point of the exercise is to explore and identify the greatest number of possible options for innovation. Not to start designing solutions.

3.?????Document the process

Due to the potential complexity of this process it is beneficial to document the functional decomposition and interfaces and the interface transformations. This should also be beneficial for subsequent analysis and review and further design development.

Initially this approach may seem too abstract to be useful. Therefore, it may be helpful to think of it as a structured brainstorming exercise. The benefit of this structured approach is that when followed methodically there is a higher likelihood that more ideas will be explored than compared to the more traditional brainstorming and conceptual design approaches, often limited by personal experience and biases.

Review

Once interface state manipulations are complete all options are reviewed before onto formal design development. Whilst beyond the scope of this article options for innovation should be reviewed and prioritised against typical metrics such as development time, cost, novelty, achievability, commercial viability, likelihood of success, etc. It may be that multiple options for innovation are identified and actioned for formal design development.

Of these, ‘achievability’ or ‘commercial viability’ should be a key metric. One key criterion often ignored in design development is whether implementing the change is achievable. I.e. can it be done, both in terms of the innovation itself, but also the design development conditions under which the innovation will be developed (i.e. the people, the design environment, economic and business conditions, etc).

Analogous to having a ‘business case’ too often innovation, whether product, service or business related, goes into design development without sufficient exploration of how achievable the innovation is. For example, after implementing a series of interface transformations a particular innovation may be considered more attractive from the perspective of novelty, however with regards to achievability it may be a better decision to start by considering the innovation defined by only the first or second transformation.

Set realistic expectations and of what can be achieved and by when.

At the end of the BISD process, with one or more innovations selected, detailed design development can proceed. This may involve more than one innovation to the product’s functions (or interfaces) and whilst beyond the scope of this article the process of design development should follow typical best design development practices including peer review, virtual and real prototyping, and testing to validate the innovation and make a viable product.

A simple example

Next steps…design development, prototyping, testing and validation

An additional benefit of the BISD process is that the functional decomposition provides an effective means to isolate sub-systems not only for innovation and design development but also for targeted prototyping and testing.

The decomposed and isolated sub-system already described in terms of its function and interface(s) can also be more effectively translated into developing prototyping and testing programmes to validate and verify the proposed innovation and changes.

Even if not considering BISD from an innovation design perspective the approach of decomposition can be beneficial in isolating key functions and associated features for prototyping and testing existing products.

?In conclusion

Too often in design development we start the process of design with a blank piece of paper. We are constrained by what we know and can conceive of as possible. Furthermore, much of our design training and experience starts with a blank sheet of paper. When faced with a blank piece of paper we are further limited by available time as now a certain amount of energy must be given to putting detail onto the page. Therefore, we spend time drawing or putting on paper what we know and not innovating.

This approach is common in product design where the first stage of the product design process often starts by drawing complete or whole variants of the existing product, typically slightly different versions of the original product. Open any industrial design or product design book, and under ‘concept design’ you will typically be presented with versions of complete or whole products. Whilst this can be beneficial to gaining an appreciation and understanding of the product, if this is the chosen design approach, then invariably the result will likely be development of aesthetic variations of the original product, with no substantive or actual innovation.

This analogy extends to business and service development where too often whole processes are identified for innovation. Rather than innovate from the existing business function, a clean sheet approach is undertaken resulting in processes ultimately being replaced by ostensibly equivalent versions of the original business function. The business equivalent of aesthetic change.

Notwithstanding, there is nothing wrong with this approach, and in many situations, it is totally acceptable if the understood purpose is to create something that is aesthetically different but functionally the same. Whilst innovation may occur, it is unstructured and likely accidental, or at least highly subjective being dependent on the individuals involved and their experience and biases. Moreover, a more comprehensive and diverse innovation space will most likely not be explored. If the purpose is to innovate, this ‘inventor’ approach is inefficient and self-limiting. Limiting as it invariably relies upon the individual’s ability and more importantly experience and knowledge to explore the innovation space; and inefficient in the broader context of design development because it lends itself to design, prototyping and testing of the whole.

So, if you want a structured and systematic approach to design innovation, a repeatable process independent of the application, and that should increase the likelihood of successfully ‘changing something that already exists in a new or novel way’ consider tackling your next design challenge using the Boundary Interface State Design approach.