"When it comes to the software we use at work, it’s as if the Design Revolution never happened..."

Being a design crusader myself, I should (would) agree with this statement (read full article) in a jiffy. The article, its content and especially this statement has been playing on my mind ever since I read it.

A few caveats:

• I am totally signed up to bring about a design revolution within the world of enterprise software (been at it for close to a decade).
• I am a firm believer that people using software at work deserve/are entitled to better user experience
• There is a lot of inspiration out there that could be relevant for enterprise software

Having said so, as an insider of this world I have realized that we designers (including myself) might need to take a few steps back and ask ourselves the question - how do we define design revolution? and, what aspects should such a revolution cover for it to qualify as one?

My learning from this pondering exercise is as follows:

• End users are not (yet) active participants in the enterprise software world. We are quite far away from that day and I will look forward to it. 
• 'Consumerization' of IT is not (yet) widespread - despite how catchy the buzz word is. Enterprises - especially large ones, in industries like Oil & Gas, Utilities etc. are largely traditional in their way of working. Bringing about a change within these conglomerates and establishments is a very very slow  process. Getting access to the end user who works in an oil rig (e.g.) with heavy machinery is not an easy task - the stakeholders within such corporations often do not even consider it important enough to justify the efforts. 
• Enterprise software is an investment - a very expensive one. So the default expectations are for it to show business value - in numbers and figures...indirect costs like user training to use the software/ duplication of efforts at end user level due to bad usability etc is often too hard to measure, show tangible improvements and most of all are not on the top of the mind of CFO/CEO, CTO/CIO etc.  
• Desirability takes a different meaning in the enterprise software. The question is, 'desirable for whom?' Often priorities like scale, ROI, process optimization and other such KPIs define the desirability of a solution. So desirability for the IT department is often the answer. We need to understand this role well: 
• The user experience of a solution is often a judgement call of this department - if it is easy for them, it will be easy for every one else (cos there will be trainings anyway).   
• The design of these solutions are often a reflection of the awareness and imagination of this decision maker. 
• The IT department claims to know the needs of the end users. This is true but only partly - they only know about all the issues/troubles the end users have reported/complained to them about while using their tools (software). 
• The IT department often works on the goal to optimize things for the business units and the end users. Defining a new process and demanding everyone to change their way of working is often the approach taken.     

So perhaps the factors that qualify as design revolution in the enterprise software world are along the lines of:

• Business process design - they may not look and work as nicely as we desire but they bring immense value to the corporations. E.g. to be able to track the entire supply chain process in an integrated system. 
• Visualization of immense amount of data for better decision making on one screen - might consist only of charts and graphs - details of which only a domain expert may understand. Nevertheless to this expert it brings immense value. 
• Getting different disparate systems (hardware and software) to speak to each other

Adding value is an integral part of design. Perhaps these aspects are more technically inclined but perhaps could be qualifiers as aspects of design revolutions.

Are we designers cutting ourselves too short and making things worse for us by saying, the 'user experience' is not optimum hence there is no design revolution?

Maybe we need to open our minds to acknowledge and appreciate these process designs that are changing the world people work, changing businesses even though they may not have the experience we associate with Apple/popular consumer solutions?

Food for thought!!! 

A new perspective

Last year I got out of my comfort zone and got myself enrolled into a B school (Said Business School, Oxford) to complete a post graduate course in Strategy and Innovation. Having been a D school person throughout my career, this gave me an opportunity to be amidst CEO's/ corporate strategists, entrepreneurs. I learnt a lot from my class mates and the course content. The course content was completely new territory for me and it gave me a completely new perspective to things - how interlinked corporate strategy is to innovation, how this breed of people think and function.

My goal obviously was not only to learn new things but also find relevant connections of what I was learning to what I do - design.

Here are a few snapshots that are especially relevant to large companies:

• Having learnt the theory of strategy, I realized how:
• difficult it is to define a corporate strategy that is not too high level and is not too detailed either.  
• misunderstood and misused the term strategy is (like so many other buzz words)
• important it is to appropriately cascade the strategy to make it relevant to the various departments. At this level a well cascaded strategy should be like a well written design brief - it should provide a sense of direction to people and motivate people to think of ways to achieve it. 
• Start ups in the technology industry seem to do well/ better than larger companies not because they all spend a lot of time talking to users and understanding their pain points - it definitely helps if they do. But besides doing this (if so), they are forced to research the market, they often do not wait for years to perfect their solution before it is released, they are agile enough to quickly iterate and even get back to the drawing board if needed based on how their solution is making money, being adopted by the intended customers etc. 
• True entrepreneurial spirit is quite hard to achieve within the comforts of operating inside a large company, with the luxury of having access to resources start ups struggle to have. 

• There is way too much fluff about design/design thinking in the corporate world right now with very little meaning and real support behind it for successful execution. 
• Very few companies place design at a strategic level - a position where design can influence corporate strategy. 
• The Design Thinking venn diagram (feasibility, viability and desirability) is over used and while it makes a lot of sense, very rarely are all these dimensions working together at the same time, at the same level of importance and the same level of granularities. 
• Given the fact that the 3 dimensions most often are not working together at the same time, the multi-dimensional' team rarely covers these three aspects. The team might be multi-dimensional in other ways, but in my opinion that doesn't help. A diverse (culturally, varied educational backgrounds etc) makes for a fun team but does not necessarily further the cause of addressing the 3 dimensions in the venn diagram.
• Although Design Thinking is based on sound principles, the attempt to make it seem 'easy' and in the process of meaninglessly standardizing the process, it has unfortunately become reduced to workshops with colorful props; a set of dogmatic to dos - user personas, user pain points, brainstorming...it has lost it's essence of taking a holistic approach.  
• A purely 'grass roots' approach to Design does not get too far. There has to be an HONEST understanding of the nuances of design and SUPPORT (not force, not buy-in) for it from the top (senior management). 

Surprisingly, I had very few classmates who were from the IT industry. A key learning for me in the context of the IT industry is, it is one industry that challenges a lot of conventional corporate methodologies owing to it's pace of change and resulting possibilities. 

To all the blackberry loyalists

An ardent Blackberry loyalists recently switched to the Apple iPhone very reluctantly. I know a whole bunch of other such loyalists still hanging on to their beloved phone that lets them type easily. This user group is willing to miss out on the world of apps made predominantly for iOS and Android (now perhaps windows too) and every other experience aspect of iOS/Android/Windows phones because of (mainly) the following reasons:

• They love the keyboard 
• They love how hardy the black berry is - its screen does not crack with a small drop 
• They are heavy users of BBM (the messaging app that used to be available only on Blackberry devices) 

Despite such a loyal user group and a relatively big one, we all know the state of affairs. Blackberry is almost pronounced dead. 'Touch' evolved to become the dominant design with new age smart phones - the platforms evolved and matured...Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Sony and many other players in this industry moved far ahead.

So what does this tell about human centered design/ design thinking?

Why does Blackberry find itself in its current situation despite a very loyal user base and very clear so called USPs (unique selling propositions)? How come the iPhone managed to change the world of mobile the way it has?

Conducting research and interviews with Blackberry users would have provided many insights and plenty of 'pain points' could have emerged. Blackberry should have simply applied the human centered design methodology and fixed their problems right? I am sure there were some very passionate designers inside RIM too.

I strongly believe no smart phone user would have implicitly/explicitly 'needed' Apps; a whole eco-system/infrastructure of an App Store and other such aspects. So it was all the brainwave of the genius Steve Jobs and his team? Perhaps it was - but I believe it was a lot of other things.
It was pushing the boundaries of existing paradigms leveraging possibilities (technology and otherwise) of the present day and age yet keeping it relevant for the users and their realities.

In order to make iPhone a success many things were thought about which was not about the mobile phone device at all. It was a holistic approach - it made it possible for people to listen to digital music legally for a price that didn't hurt too much. So it not only changed what a mobile would be used for, it also changed the music industry. The camera in the iPhone was of comparable quality of any point and shoot camera. So it changed things for the point and shoot camera makers too.

The first iPhone (launched in 2007) had a beeline of people camping outside their stores but it was far from what it is today. There were many complaints with the first version of the iPhone. But the iPhone evolved and continues to do so.

Today, Apple is being challenged by the likes of Instagram - notice the addition of Instagram like filters to the iPhone camera?
Spotify like music services are challenging iTunes. Now did any iTunes user express the pain point of having to pay to listen to digital music legally? :D

In the IT/high tech sector where things change so fast, it is critical for companies to keep a close eye on these changes in the market and change themselves in order to remain relevant. In the technology industry business models and user behaviors are constantly changing.

If there is one industry that challenges human centered design it is the IT industry. If there is one industry that cannot afford to ignore a 'supply driven' market it is the IT industry because I believe humans are not capable of expressing a need (implicitly/explicitly) for something that is futuristic - things that they cannot get to experience/touch/ feel (even partially).
Needless to say when working in a 'supply driven' market, for every 1 success, there will be hundreds/thousands of failures - thats just part of the game. It's not personal :)

For every 1 new idea/product to become a success, there are various factors that play a role apart from users - e.g. the available infrastructure to support it; the deals and collaborations the idea owning company makes with its partners/suppliers; the pricing; the logistics...ALL of which when done right creates value and makes a product/solution DESIRABLE. It is important for all design thinkers and proponents of design thinking to recognize the importance of these aspects beyond purely focussing on users - the way they work, their pain points etc.

For all those Blackberry loyalists, its a pity that your loyalty and their resulting success was taken for granted. I believe they still have a chance to revive themselves - but its a lot of catching up to do. 

The 'non-creative', realist

• Relatively clean work desk?
• No Lego blocks around you?
• No geeky toys?

Sorry, "you're not the creative, design thinker we're looking for."
Judgements and stereotypes have never bothered me.

Too often the 'we can change the world' mind-set (which I believe is a positive one) works against the design community because the mind sets makes them forget that they can indeed change the world...but not ALONE. Designers who are often propagating collaboration forget to collaborate themselves with key stakeholders (e.g. those that need to sell solutions etc.) - worse, they create a sense of superiority - we have the ideas (which is rarely the problem), you guys figure out how to make it work.

Sorry!! This doesn't cut it for me.

IDEO's unpreparedness reveals the same pitfall.

Without business model innovation, Design Thinking cannot succeed on its own. So called Design Thinkers themselves forget to look at viability and feasibility AS EQUALS! That's not setting a good example for preaching DT to the masses.

My connection with Sandy

Sitting in Germany, watching images of hurricane Sandy I was only an observer. I did not realize that I had done something 8 years ago that was actually helping those affected by Sandy.

During my stint at Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab, Bangalore, I was the designer in an excellent team that created a product named Honeywell Instant Alerts. As part of this project I got the chance to visit, meet and learn from different school staff in USA and also parents of children in these schools. As a team we managed to create a solution that really resonated with people. They found the product highly desirable. 

Today, all these years later, I learnt that this product was heavily used during hurricane Sandy. Two days during the storm, 1.1 million alerts were sent. The product was also used to encourage people to volunteer/contribute for relief work.

I felt immensely humble, proud and happy that a piece of my work touched lives of people who were in need of help. 

As a designer who likes to solve real problems leveraging technology, I realize, such situations don't occur often. It happens once in many many years. For me something like this has come along once in 10.5 years. 

As a designer, this is hugely satisfying. At times like this, I know why I am a designer and want to remain one :) 

Luxurious versus frugal innovation

Often I have sat through long discussions among design thinkers about the kind of space that is needed, the kind of (white) furniture that needs to be used to furnishing this space etc. The emphasis on this kind of a space is so much that it often sounds like a prerequisite.

During my early years of practicing design thinking, I was based in India and I never had access to such a space or any of this furniture. We didn't even have as many colors for our Post It's.

Between then and now, I've had the privilege to get a lot more exposure and learning about design thinking as it is practiced in the developed parts of the world. I've seen the design thinking spaces in different companies, educational institutes...and each time I have left feeling, 'this is so much luxury.'

A lot of money is spent on creating these spaces and keeping them that way. I still wondered why did every design thinking space need to look in this particular manner? E.g. White furniture...so much white is totally unthinkable for someone coming from a country like India. Its just not practical given the amount of dust and pollution around.

There maybe other such nuances that are specific to different parts of the world. A 'templatization' of a design and innovation space to me seem to be an oxymoron of sorts. I've seen and learnt about amazing innovations that happen with almost no such expensive resources. How can we explain that?

Jugaad innovation (frugal innovations) explains this. Finally with this book, there is a recognition that there are other forms of innovation other than the one that emerged out of the Bay area and has been (until now) presented as the only real way to be innovative.

Observations from India

In one of my domestic flights, I flipped through the pages of the popular Femina magazine and felt, a lot has changed in the country while I've been away. There are lots of local designers who are doing reasonably well making very Indian things. Many of them are bringing a contemporary edge to traditional Indian crafts, household belongings, lifestyle items etc. 

I also realize that all of a sudden 'creativity' is in vogue now. Every other person is now identifying and more importantly nurturing the creative side within themselves. People of all ages are becoming potters, candle makers, chocolate makers etc. 

‘Bacchey aaj kal job nahin, passion dhoondtey hain’ (Kids today don’t search for a job, they search for their passion instead) is the punch line of one of the big insurance companies in India, wooing parents to secure the future of their children. 
This is a welcome change from the times when every child was forced to become a doctor or an engineer or join the family business. For years, I had a hard time convincing people that my decision to take the ‘arts’ stream is the right one for me. 

The one thing that strikes out the most is, the trend towards entrepreneurship. In the last couple of years a bunch of my friends have quit their well paying jobs to become entrepreneurs. Most of them are still in their early phases, evolving, and learning. Some of the most successful ideas are the simplest ones.

My reading of all this is, 'design' is slowly gaining grounds in India, creative fields are seen as viable career options for the young generation and there is an increased confidence among the designers to work with very INDIAN concepts, principles  and challenges. 
Design methodologies are increasingly being applied to solve some complex social problems faced by the country. 
Design methodologies are also increasingly being used to identify indigenous innovations that work within the context of India. 


It all feels great :)
  

Cultural Contexts and design?

Delhi Airport: The airport looks a lot like airports in the US with carpeted floors. 
The time we got off, there were plenty of Indians too. Interestingly, during immigration, most of them were in the queue of OCI (overseas citizen of India)/foreign passport holders. The queue for Indian passport holders was the shortest.

I did notice some design flaws in the airport. A big one for me was, there was almost NO information to a first time visitor that indicated the existence of 2 other domestic terminals.

The toilet entrance have big poster size photographs of an Indian woman indicating the Women’s toilet and an Indian man indicating the Men’s toilet. At first instance, these big photographs can be easily misunderstood to be some kind of advertisements.

The domestic terminals are not very close to the International terminal. Different domestic flight carriers fly from different domestic terminals. There is no information about this available on display in the International terminal. Once you figure out which domestic terminal to get to, the next challenge is to figure out how to get there. There are very few information desks and depending on the time of the day, they may/may not be staffed.

The exit signs show signs for Taxi, Car Rentals etc but none for Inter-terminal Shuttles.

So? The only way is to ASK. Ask a security staff/ staff at a coffee shop…ask anyone who might know. You learn that there is a counter outside the exit gate of the International terminal for the inter-terminal shuttles.  Get out of this gate and yet there are no signs. In one non-descript corner is a small counter for the inter-terminal shuttles. Present the tickets of your onward journey and you will be told the number of a relevant bus station. At this bus station, there is no bus. The bus parked at the adjacent station is also going to the domestic terminals and is waiting for more passengers before it leaves.
Shall I get into that one? Or shall I stay put at the bus station I was told to get a bus from?

As an Indian, asking people and finding my way through places is inherent in me. But having traveled a lot through international airports, I was just putting myself in the shoes of a first time visitor. In most international airports, one can get around without asking anyone anything – using maps/signage etc. So I wonder if there needs to be some form of standardization in International airports so it’s a one time learning process for travelers?

On the other hand, can't we just work on our culture of ‘asking’ and design with it in mind? That's what we do to ask for directions, to find out things...We are a country with a large population and human capital. We also have a large English speaking population. So why not leverage it? We do not necessarily have to go the direction of automation and/or self-service. We could potentially have our own unique approach to address these issues by making it equally intuitive and adoptable.

The aspect about demographics

When we go out to do research, we often meet professionals in the age group of 30-50.
Many of us in the design teams belong to the same age group.
Ironically, the solution is targeted to be used by the future generation. 

While I talk to a current user groping with this sudden boom of (e.g.) social media, I need to design a solution for a generation that pretty much grew up with it - cannot think of a life without it. Currently, this future generation is perhaps in their teens or getting a higher education.

Although, there are lot of talks about the aging populations, the new workforce etc. we spend so little time gaining a better understanding and insights into this potential new workforce.

Wouldn't it be great if we could invest time interacting with university grads etc to understand how they perceive their work places, work practices, tools etc.

Opening up

A friend of mine recently opted to buy the Samsung Galaxy instead of the Apple iPhone - for various reasons.

Samsung Galaxy is not the same as the Apple iPhone, however, it is really quite good by itself. It runs on the Google Android platform. Samsung among many others is part of the Open Handset Alliance.
The alliance has mobile operators; handset manufacturers; software companies; semiconductor companies...

It made me wonder that over the years, the consumer space has become to open and collaborative; companies are partnering with each other in ways that make sense to come up with meaningful products and services to consumers in a very desirable manner.

In my eyes such alliances reflect the realization that one company cannot do everything on it's own.

On the other hand, in the enterprise world, I still see companies trying to build a lot of things internally - not opening up to team up with expert players and collaboratively working on shipping meaningful products and services to customers in a desirable way.

There is so much innovation happening in the consumer space, so fast, the enterprise world is merely catching up. I feel, the least we can do is partner with some of the players in the consumer space. I have heard the usual arguments of security, complexity bla bla often as reasons why the enterprise world does not work on this model. I am sure these are aspects that are very important in any kind of application.
I don't believe the enterprise is unique.

Just because a user is using an enterprise software, does he/she have to endure bad design?

Food for thought: From CHI 2010

Among other things Genevieve spoke about in her opening plenary session, one thing playing in my mind was the comment, "while many companies tend to focus their attention on creating technology for today’s youth, it’s the older generations who comprise the majority of the world’s population, and so technology should be more geared toward that demographic."


This brought tons of questions/thoughts to my mind:

• A lot is discussed about 'cultural' differences while doing 'international user research,' but not much emphasis laid on the 'age' factor and all resulting aspects
• While recruiting participants for Usability Tests, the focus is primarily on the 'fitment to the role' and the 'tasks' done by the user. Age is incidental/an after thought.
• Rarely do 'analyze' our findings based on 'age'.
• Wonder: Is this the reason 'touch' has become to successful compared to interacting with other input devices?
• Most self services in the 'western world are offered as 'touch' interfaces. Usage of these systems are quite widespread. ATM machines; ticketing machines...
• While Apple gets the flack from its 'younger' user base for not having 'multi-tasking' capabilities in their iPad, perhaps this is good news for the majority of the population. Keeps things focussed and simpler. 
• Does this explain why despite technological advancements, we have not achieved the dream of a 'paper less' world.
• Applications like 'Facebook' and 'Twitter' is getting adopted by older generations - perhaps driven by the need of distributed family members and friends. However, such applications are rather easy to sign up and start using.
• The age old debate of 'novice user versus expert user' now turn into the 'elder user versus younger user?'

Living in Europe, I experience his 'age' gap aspect almost on a daily basis. I even run into conflicts owing to our related mindsets. While Genevieve states the FACT that the majority of the world's population is old, articles like those below often project a contrary image:

• 'Envisioning your future'
• Life in 2020 

Are these then the 'idealized images' as shown by Genevieve in her presentation? Notice, the visuals always show 'young' people. ;-)


I as a relatively 'younger' citizen of this planet, can IMAGINE some of these 'futuristic predictions,' the 'older generation' cannot fathom these concepts. While some make an attempt to challenge themselves and feel proud of being able to embrace technology, others get more and more turned off by them.


In the midst of all this, some communities are forever discussing the big debate of 'bridging the digital divide.'


I ask myself:

• Do I know the average age of the users currently using the product I am involved with?
• How long are these users likely to remain users of this product? (owing to retirement etc)
• Thereby, what is the likely average age of the so called 'next generation' users of this product?

Abnormal situations and Design

I got to experience such a situation first hand when Eyjafjallajoekull started to erupt.
On Saturday I learnt that my Sunday evening flight to return to Frankfurt is cancelled.
Now starts the process of finding alternatives ways to get home.

• Step 1: Being a weekend, the office travel help line is not responding to calls.
• Step 2: Delta numbers stated on their websites have a minimum waiting time of 45 mintues
• Step 3: Delta website offers no UPFRONT information on the home page of volcano related updates. Click on 'Flight Information' > Itineraries > (Here there is a small one liners about flight schedule impact) > Enter confirmation number > Click on Find Alternatives > The date drop down only allows you to find an alternative for the 'next day' (tomorrow). Wow! Given the situation, isn't it obvious that the next day will not be available? What if I was willing to wait for 2 weeks and wanted an alternate flight?
• Step 4: Check general flight availability to somewhere in Europe via Delta's regular flight booking feature. ERROR! This facility is not available currently

After all these attempts, to do something from my hotel room I was left with no other option but to go to the airport.

A huge line waits in front of the Delta international counters.  A Delta staff gives us a 'Service Advisory' post card with a number to call and tells us, either you wait in the line here or you call them and be prepared to be put on hold for a long time.

I got a new reservation for the following Sunday, 25th April.

Meanwhile, my office travel team helps me get on a flight to Rome on Tue evening instead of waiting untill Sunday.

Once in Rome, I figured there are no flights to Southern Germany available. So train was an option.

In the Rome train station ticket counter I am welcomed by posters stating, 'all trains to Northern Europe are booked untill 23rd April 2010.'

Service Design
I noticed, there seems to be some attempt to 'filter' the desperate versus the not so desperate passengers. I can understand the need to 'filter' to be able to manage the volume of impacted people, but I wonder if this is the best way to do so:

• Delta provided the 'Service Advisory' number on postcards handed out only at the airport. (A different number from those mentioned on their website). So did they assume, that the really desperate passengers will come to the airport? So they will hand this number to just them?
• In the Rome train station, these posters of trains booked untill 23rd April might have made many passengers go away without waiting in line. To me, the definition of Northern Europe was not clear. Was it UK/Scandinavia/northern France/northern Germany or did Frankfurt/Stuttgart/ etc also fall under this because they were towards the north from Rome. So I decided to check anyway. I was desperate indeed.
• I did manage to get a train ticket to Stuttgart, leaving the same evening.

Perhaps I was plain lucky. But when things are in so much flux - bookings, cancellations, these reservation systems would be constantly updating...so it cannot be true that everything is completely booked. If that was the case, the counters could well be closed. Right?

Moreso, in abnormal situations, the design of such services need to be more 'comforting' to its consumers. But more often than not, systems fail to function efficiently, when they are needed the most.

Compared to a lot of other impacted people, I was fortunate enough to be relatively more comfortable. It however made me think, of ways such situations can be handled better. How can these services be handled better?
Posters stating, 'all trains booked...' at the entrance of ticket counters; getting a special phone number to call only at the airport somehow makes me distrust such services.

• Perhaps in such situations, some people are more comfortable talking to another 'human being' than interacting with some machines?
• Alternatively, can there be some 'self service' machines installed in airports/ train stations that lets you analyze your options - if you are willing to wait, what are your options...if you are desperate, what are your options...
• For those who can wait, perhaps there are some package deals of accomodation, pick up and drop to/from the airport/train station; combine this with a flight/train/bus tickets; local SIM card/ internet facility etc.
• For those who cannot wait, suggest alternate routes, pricing information etc.
• Essentially: some 'decision support' possibilities
• Many people were running out of money - can there be some ways to help them get some money on loan untill they get to their destinations? - in the days of huge bail outs, clearly, there can be some way to help people out
• Many international airports do not have a basic 'sleeping in' facilities - with stringent immigration regulations; visa time running out, cant there be a way to offer passengers a way to sleep in the airport in a more comfortable way? I know some airports - e.g. Schiphol made a lot of attempt towards such things. Even were flexible with their visa norms. However, not every airport and country did as much.

Design of Train Stations
Europe, like India has an extensive rail network. Thousands of people travel by train on a daily basis. Typically people tend to have more luggage while travelling by train (compared to travelling by air). Yet, so often, train stations do not offer simple facilities like, luggage trolleys; escalators/ elevators to move between levels;enough seating space; places to store luggage saftely for a few hours; an in-transit hotel to be able to sleep in...

Perhaps it is too much to expect such facilities in every train station in a country. However, I think it is important that the MAIN train station of BIG CITIES to have them.

While I have more questions than answers right now, I see a world of opportunity out there to better design services, spaces to handle abnormal situations better. Would love to hear and discuss ideas from you all too...

Innovation, Steve Jobs and more...

Disclaimer: I do not want to take away any credit from Steve Jobs and what he does. I love Apple products and the entire experience around them.

Apple products and its User Experience has become a 'poster' for everyone in the industry. I am a huge fan of it too. However, I could not believe that they did all this by some sheer magic and just by a SINGLE personality like Steve Jobs. I was convinced that they would have their own challenges, which they successfully overcome - reflects in their end products.
I do not believe that life would be a bed of roses for Jonathan Ive and his team of designers. I am certain they would have their internal challenges too. I mean which true 'designer' would enjoy working in a place that did not have challenges to overcome?

'And the award goes to...the supply chain guy' I came across this article and blogpost by accident on the internet and felt, reassured. I could relate to Apple as a 'corporation' more after reading this. It reassured me of my belief that the level of 'innovation' that Apple was able to deliver to its consumers, cannot be possible without a lot of other things working in a certain way. Some of them mentioned in the article:

• simplifying the product portfolio to reduce manufacturing costs and increase profit margins,
• making a product available simultaneously in multiple countries to increase product launch impact
• while reducing marketing costs,
• making a one-size-fits-all cell phone without a physical keyboard to accommodate any current and future keyboard configuration and decrease localization costs,
• using open-source FreeBSD as the core of Apple OS X to provide stability to the OS and focus precious development efforts in a market-differentiating OS experience,
• locating the core of their developers in Cupertino, CA rather than outsourcing development to India to make development tasks more effective and achieve better alignment around user-focused corporate culture,

Clearly:

• its not enough for board members and other members of senior management to start telling people to be 'innovative' when so many things around them are not ENABLING them to do so.
• true innovation can only happen when things are thought through - across organizational silos. 
• innovation isnt something restricted to 'individuals.' It is ALWAYS a result of multiple people contributing towards a COMMON/SHARED VISION/GOAL.
• innovation is about entrepreneurial spirit
• innovation is about some BRAVE decisions to solve problems at the root level and turn things around.
• innovation is not restricted just to a bunch of 'designers' 
• innovation means 'cleaning things up internally' to be able to better serve the consumers.
• innovation is NOT skin deep

Being an 'grassroots innovator'

The BUZZZZ word of this decade (other than 'green' everything)
What does it take to be an 'innovator' in a large corporation?
Speaking from first hand experience, here's what I think it takes:

• Loads of self motivation
• HATE/DETEST some things in such an uncompromising manner that you are forced to think of a solution for it - (need is one of the basis of innovation)
• Have tons of ideas
• Do informal discussions to get a gut feeling of the feasibility of your ideas
• Maintain a good network/ maintain a good relationship with people who have a good network
• Don't be demoralized when you realize half of your ideas already exist - in different flavors.
• Don't be demoralized if the local patent office fails to see the potential in it
• Collaborate collaborate collaborate
• Collaborate with anyone who is as excited about your ideas as you
• Collaborate with anyone who has the skills to make a proof of concept with you
• Try to strike a balance between being innovative but not in an extremely disruptive way. The more disruptive the approach, the more it will be hard to sell it/ get acceptance
• Let the proof of concept get as many eyeballs as possible
• The more the people associate your's and the team's name to the idea; proof of concept, the better
• Once the proof of concept gets attention of senior management perpare yourself (mentally) to withdraw...
• NOW THE JOB OF THE INNOVATOR BEGINS TO SLOW DOWN AND EVENTUALLY END!!
• Your idea, proof of concept is now ready to become 'bigger' - plenty of more people will get associated with it. Some of who would like their names to be associated to it...more than the innovator's.
• For a 'grassroot' innovator, reaching this stage too is 'gratifying' 

Irrespective of who's name gets on that last ppt. - you can smile and tell yourself. 'hey, i thought of it first' :)
Its TIME to move on to the NEXT IDEA...