It makes a TON of sense to introduce a sidebar or a piece not he alignment process. We talk about teamwork a bit, but could expand it.

Do you have a particular example for how to make the process “as descriptive and effective as possible”? Would love to know what you are thinking.

Given all this, I wonder if it’s valuable to stress that not only is this tool valuable at describing one’s early hypothesis or gut framing, but also equally proficient at framing more defined topics to an extended team. I’ve introduced this framework to colleagues whom were impressed by the depth of information covered in its seemingly simple format. This inherent approachability and efficiency make it a must for just about any project, and an obvious first step before any further resources are spent.

As you describe in later chapters, the Intent 2.0 happens after some time spent learning more about the business, people, and technology drivers affecting the opportunity. However, sometimes companies don’t take the time to revisit past assumptions, and simply move on to new directions and initiatives. Even if early framing misses the mark or worse, is proven wrong, many people typically don’t take the time to hone their Intent, instead choosing to “start from scratch” or “never look back” depending on the project context. Frankly, the discipline needed to revisit one’s initial framing is often cast aside in favor of momentum, politics, time, or other resource-driven factor. I mention this not to dissuade teams from creating an Intent 2.0, but rather as an example of why it’s typically and woefully overlooked.

Perhaps the framework should include an emphasis on the alignment process—recommendations on how and when to best sculpt, share, and revisit an intent statement—in an effort to create the foundation for further innovation. For many teams, this will be the first and last chance to frame their projects and set the tone in rapidly passing quarters. I know much of that ideal meta process is outlined throughout the book, but I think it’s worth considering how to make the innovation intent process as descriptive and effective as possible.

Thanks for the great resource,
—Peter

Perhaps we could assume (rightly in big organization or maybe wrongly in small ones) that ongoing work is constantly happening to understand context and there is always a list of potential Intent 1.0′s. That way, it would be relatively easy to put it together with a little co-creative process and framework?

Of course, the team must to document the framing session and review it with their stakeholders for clarification in order to keep people from drifting to far from the relevant conversations during the framing session. Now, I know how much effort the team can afford to devote to finalizing the Innovation Intent 1.0.

Depending on resources, the opportunity definition from the framing session might serve as the Innovation Intent 1.0. Most likely we will expand from there and consider other boundaries such as core competences, the confluence of trends, orthodoxies, etc. I do not mean full on discovery, but just some intelligent thinking to inform the Innovation Intent 1.0 that will serve as a good starting point to the project and align with stakeholders.

The whole idea being that sensing intent will be more effective and lead to a better Innovation Intent 2.0.

So, maybe for this chapter their is framing tool that leads into the Innovation Intent 1.0 document…hope that helps.

Intent is one of the hardest parts of innovation. It can easily be glossed over by teams…and as time goes on…teams may become misaligned with their stakeholders regarding intent 1.0 thereby throwing off the entire direction a project.

Question: Is the assumption for the book, that the innovation intent 1.0 is the result a of articulating a root cause of a problem? Could the team looking for white space opportunity? Or could it be all of the above or other.

The structure for the Innovation Intent 1.0 is great. However, teams may want help getting there.

My thinking is that the aspiration and strategy of a business should have a big impact on where teams focus their innovation energy. After the strategy and aspirations are clear, teams might broadly take into account the company’s core competences, the confluence of relevant trends, their company’s competitive landscape, customer insights (broadly articulated) and industry orthodoxies. Taking these into account will give boundaries to help the team develop a hypothesis that is the core of the Innovation Intent 1.0.

Overall: Here is a thought…how abut downloadable tools (wall charts) for each chapter. Then teams can download these tools to help foster meaningful and productive conversations (in a workshop setting or through team conversations). You could even gather feedback from teams who use NakedInnovation tools and iterate better versions.

Also, regarding this chapter on Intent 1.0, the point of the chapter itself is to force a team to develop a hypothesis (Identify) which then enables a team to explore across People (empathize with clients, or people, to understand latent needs), Technology and Business and reframe (Identify refined). That then moves into structured methods of concept generation, various forms of iteration (through Prototyping and other means), ultimately landing at full on Implementation.

It would be great for you to stick with us for more chapters to continue to give feedback. It would also be great for you to pass on NakedInnovation.com to the Nielsen Innovation Lab. It seems our approaches are well aligned, so I imagine they will get something out of it.

Thanks!