Out-come Driven Method

This method is advocated by Anthony W Ulwick and his associates. It rests on a functional perspective that shifts the research focus from customer to outcome, that is, from people to the things they try to achieve (Ulwick does not discern between customer, consumer and user).

The outcome-driven method is organized as process consisting of the following eight steps: 1. Formulate innovation strategy, 2. Capture customer inputs, 3. Identify opportunities, 4. Segment the market, 5. Define targeting strategy, 6. Position current offerings, 7. Prioritize development pipeline, and 8. Define breakthrough concepts.

In Ulwick’s framework, the important thing is not how customer inputs are captured, but which type of customer inputs one should attend to in the first place. There are three types of useful user-inputs:

• Jobs (which activities are to be carried out)
• Outcomes (which metrics are used to evaluate the execution of jobs)
• Constraints (what will prevent customers from adopting a product/service)

As possible methods for obtaining these types of input Ulwick mentions personal interviews, focus groups, ethnographic, anthropological and observational research (Ulwick, 2005, s. 33-34). It should be noted that Ulwick specifies his focus to that of gathering requirements for innovation and not for concept evaluation or feedback. With this in mind, the important thing is to avoid inputs in the form of solutions, specifications, needs, benefits and other such notions often known as the ‘voice of the customer’. There are various reasons for avoiding these types of input as means for innovation: Solution and specification inputs, for instance, assumes that the customer is more able than the specialists who have to develop the products (engineers, scientists, designers and other experts). Instead one should figure out which jobs the proposed solution is supposed to perform (and which outcomes it will be evaluated by), and then let the experts decide for themselves how to go about the problem. Needs and benefit inputs, often fall short on the account being vague. In a study of Motorola cell phone users, for instance, Ulwick et al. found twenty-one different definitions of the vague benefit ‘easy to use’. Good customer input must be concise, actionable and measurable.