FIND InnoNuggets


Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Black Swan Post of 2014 - "Invent Strong" - on linkedin and other posts

I have been writing on LinkedIn since June 2014. I blogged about on this site HERE

On Xmas day 2014 I wrote a post my interview titled Invent Smart. Once can read the post HERE

It was fairly straightforward post and I dont think very different from my previous posts. However, It was picked up by a Linkedin Channel Big Ideas & Innovation

The Black Swan Post

For next two days my linkedin profile exploded to a viewership of more than 5000+. My average readership is about 200+ per post on an average. It was wonderful to get the experience of a real "Black Swan" in my posts. It seems people loved what they read as well.

Adding to my posts on linkedin I wrote couple of more that haven't received explosive response of Invent Strong.

These are - The Idea Killer Question - Does it really work  and the The Artificial Intelligence - what Elon Musk, Stephen Hawkings and Ray Kurzweil do not get

These two are not the Blackswan types as they havent been picked by any channel so far.

But here is my question - How does the channel pick up posts for publication? What are the key criteria?

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

20 Posts from Crafitti Facebook Page in 2014 - in No particular order

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

Inventing Strategies using Crisis Gaming

Sunday, November 02, 2014

Indo-China Strategic Analysis - Blueprint for Indian security - emerging from my writings

One of the most fascinating arena of study for me has been the changes in India, China, their interactions and impact on the world. Given my interest in Military and Geo-politics especially study of conflict, it has been fascinating to study the dragon and the elephant (or now the Lion, if one may). Below, I am just collating my articles and columns on the India China evolution. 

Last year I gave a talk on Strategic Analysis in Chaotic times. The talk presentation slides can be accessed at the blogpost 
It gives the impact of China plan (Deng's reforms and blueprint in 1978) and design of a new type of superpower. The whitepaper released in 2013 on Chinese Military by China explained it should have "Armed forces commensurate with China's International standing" in a world of increasing economic globalization, multi-polarity, cultural diversity and emergence of information society. I proposed comprehesnive integrated warfare as the new doctrinal shift India need to operate in the environment of multiple threats.

What can China do in future? A scenario of distinct possibility. China captures Pakistan

To become a robust nation, perhaps India need to learn from China and US, however, it has to evolve its own path as I wrote couple of years back. 

India has to penetrate the smokescreens created by both USA and China.  reaching to their deepest long term interests and intentions.
Recently, In "Great fall of China, Consequences for India " I wrote

"China has become used to continuous rapid growth for last two decades or so. If and when the growth gets impacted adversely or dented, Dragon may become more assertive and militarily active. A recent Rand Research Brief provides three potential Asian futures (a) Systemic Continuity – China continues to be cooperative but more assertive (b) Hegemonic China and (c) Systemic Breakdown. The report further states that current situation points more in between the first two futures. However, one should explore the possibility of a breakdown where “Asian governments must secure popular support by offering something other than rising prosperity.”From India’s point of view all three futures are fraught with increasing danger.

Why India need to create and how it can create a long term doctrinal shift through comprehensive integrated warfare doctrine. 

1. The airpower is changing dynamically and we have different type of air power getting created - unmanned, intelligent, stealthy, hypersonic and conventional prompt global strike world.  

2. India will need a new ministry of foresight and intelligence. A proposal here
What will the ministry do? It will carry out seminar games and create crisis stability responses such as
and crisis gaming Iran-Israel war, for example.

3. India will have to think in mission mode and "on its own" - it needs to get angry enough.
This can be achieved by learning through its successful organizations and failed projects. For example how ISRO achieves success.

Instead of going to Foreign Vendors quickly, India seriously need to think through its options at home. For example, do we really need MMRCA?

4.  How to counter China should be of paramount importance. Countering may including collaborating and competing simultaneously. In fact, mountain strike corps and associated capabilities really need to be thought through. For example one can have a look at the Striking China The Mountain Strike Corps need to be designed in an innovative manner 
It will require a new Air-Mountain Warfare Doctrine to be created.

5. India need a maritime doctrine for a declining US rising China world. The doctrine has to build a sea-denial component especially in the new age of lethality where Manned Aircraft Carriers may be more vulnerable.

6. India need to seriously design the next "revolution in military affairs". Predominantly software based and software intensive, India has the potential.

7. India need to build a system or system of systems to make itself disaster proof. 

8. Our soldiers need to be prepared for the 7-Dimensional Wars of the future. A tall task indeed. 

9. A very serious threat of the 7D wars are the Cyber warfare. This is going to be the gravest challenge for India - cyber security.

10. A comprehensive study of Comprehensive integrated warfare needs is required. For example what are the Network centric warfare architectural options for India.
A strategic command and control network design has to be explored and evolved for the Indian strategic forces.In effect, India should learn and build its own Network Centric Warfare Doctrine - a challenge today.

11.  Integrating the C2 network with Indian missiles and delivery systems in a robust system that can survive the first strike is the key. MIRVed ICBMs are crucial for such a system. It is not MAD but Non First Use requires MIRVed ICBMs - Agni-5 is in right direction.

12. Basic military doctrine for 7D wars have to be written and created. A proposal in the 3 parts article Here.   (a longish article - perhaps need to be written as a mongraph)

13. Operating in the Globalizing Innovation Complexity (The GIXBang world) India need to respond, evolve and design a world with gives it secured-assured-progressive-development

Sunday, October 26, 2014

What is the best way to access my online articles and content?

A recent linkedin connection asked me this question

"Nice connecting with you. I would like to go through your articles and videos. What is the best way to access them?"

My reply to his simple question is perplexing to me

"Nice to connect.

An interesting question. Forget about the "best" I have difficulty in answering "any" way to access.

First problem - not in one place.

nevertheless let me try

1. (Inside TRIZ has some of my article)

2. I write a regular column at FrontierIndia

3. TRIZ-Journal (revived website) has some of my old article

4. I blog at

5. My slideshare

6. My google Scholar citations (of my book as well as some other papers)

7. My company website

8. Youtube Videos (just a few)

9. Crafitti's facebook page is very active

10. Linkedin groups ( I run two)

My apologies for such putting you to such a detailed "algorithm" to access my rants and rumblings

Open Innovation ! Where are you?

Where is Open Innovation in 2014?

Open Innovation was a mantra last decade.

By 2008 however, people started questioning it. I wrote in this post

"Mark the word BIG COMPANIES. Last year when I asked a gathering of Big Company executives on a sales pitch," we know when elephants cant stamp they start dancing, when they cant dance do they become more social or open" - the big company executives did not answer. But the real hidden intentions of big companies really is cover risks of small guys eating suddenly what they have created for so many years.
This will be short term, in my opinion, only co-creation with mutual trust has long term sustainability."

Ivy League Profs talked about it as "Innovation Bazaar" 

My reaction to their HBR paper was " The end-effect after reading is - what are they saying different or new - if you are the one who have been following the open innovation literature - you will get a feeling of "heard it before" after reading the paper.The only interesting part is of course naming the article as Innovation Bazaar.
Further since the two professors are already ready with their book on Network-centric Innovation it will be interesting to see - whether we get the same feeling after reading the book as well. I hope not!"

However, the book on "Starfish Vs Spider" gave a nice articulation of the change - not necessarily in open innovation way - but generally in the emergence of leaderless organizations - A review Here

My comment after reading the book " I am love-stuck with this book! Do I need to say more"

My view has been that we are seeing three interconnected trends I call Globalization Innovation Complexity. All three are increasing but impacting each other- both by impeding and accelerating simultaneously. A phenomenally different world is emerging. I called in The GIXBang world.

Open Innovation Next has to be looked at how our understanding of Networks Evolve.

The shifts were visible - its not Open Innovation - but Co-Creation

And I wrote " I call it just the first step... Next will be the invitation only conference with your Value Net - customers, complementers, competitors and suppliers. This is the age of co-creation. Earlier enterprises realize better it is for all. This actually requires all round mutual trust and confidence in openness to explore future.Zero sum games will be failures in co-creation scenarios - play the +ve sum games, where in each others capabilities are synergized to create end value!"

Our view was that Open Innovation has to be Lean and TRIZ enabled 

It has to be a learning organization

We formulated 14 Key Areas for Value

The Operating Architecture for GIXBang world is not "open innovation" but Co-Crafting. And one can become an Innovation Co-Crafter by SOUL-ALVIS-CRAFT framework.

We need to move from simpleton to scientist  to saint 

We call it the Innovation Co-Crafting approach.

10th Year of Blogging

I started my blog 9 years back - 23 Oct 2005 to be exact.
The first post @ InnovationCrafting

10 Interesting Posts from my Blog - one from each year (2005 to 2014)
2005 - (Business Method Patents)
2006 - (FLOW - the elements of Joy)

Sunday, October 05, 2014

How to make Tea? Real Indian Masala Chai

How to make Tea - Real Indian Masala Chai

 Gurdian published an article titled

How to make tea correctly (according to science): milk first - 

The Link to the article is HERE

Looks like the world has to be taught - how to make Tea. I will tryto explain the Indian version of the Tea

Put water for boiling. As it reaches 50 degrees centigrade or so - add 1/4th amount of milk. I don't add sugar (but if you want you can)
Add ginger and cardamom - if you have these available.
Add tea leaves

Let the mixture boil. As it reaches to the brim - reduce the temperature so that it goes back in the vessel. Now give it one more boil. and one more boil.

Close the vessel and let the mixture simmer.

Pour the mixture through a filter into a large Mug (I really want a large mug of tea)

Start drinking one sip at a time and doing your work or reading a book 

I do not know about scientific method or the correct method -
But the above is the "best" method that we know of in India ...

{**** please try the above "algorithm" of making tea and give me your feedback ****} 

I am sure - the sophisticated Tea methods described in the link above - you will forget !
Look forward to your Indian tea making experience

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

How to Invent Strong - A Framework (abstract, introduction and conclusions a conference paper)

How to Invent Strong - A Framework

(**** introduction to a paper that I am writing for a conference ****)

Abstract: One of the most important outputs of human mind has been continuous stream of inventions over many eras of civilization. However, human mind has been inventing using what is called “trial and error” methods on its evolutionary journey. As our world becomes more complex, inventing through trial and error is unsustainable. Theory of Inventive problem solving (TRIZ in Russian acronym) has been developed through analysis of patents describing the logic of inventions. It categorized the inventions into five increasing levels of inventiveness based on sources of solutions and the quantum of change they created compared to existing systems.  In this paper, we describe set of tools for thinking to invent strong, i.e., to invent at level 3 and above of TRIZ five levels. Thinking about new operating principles to deliver the functions, making the existing systems closer to an ideal system and resolving deeply embedded conflict in the system called physical contradiction are the key elements from TRIZ that we have included in the framework for invent strong. Three real case studies- for cracking of hydrocarbons, improving the digestive abilities of the cattle and choosing the stronger paths using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to invent – are described to give a flavor of how the invent strong framework can be applied. We propose using TRIZ for inventing strong is essential need of the world as it becomes more complex and requires stronger innovative solutions quickly. The human mind has to quickly learn to adapt to inventing strong. The how to invent strong framework described in this paper with its associated tools has proven to be an effective method to generate novel solutions and can be utilized for application in multiple fields. 

1.    Introduction
For the purpose of this paper we define an invention to be a new and non-obvious technical solution to a problem. The concept of a generalized “system” is central to the technical solution. The textbook definition of a system is a set of elements interacting together to perform a function or achieve an objective. The technical solution typically results either in creation of a completely new system to deliver the function, change in the operating principle of the existing system to achieve the system functions, change in the structure of the existing system or subsystems, change in a subset of system or subsystem parameters, or just a simple addition of more functions to the existing system functions.  Many times the solution depends upon the problem itself or the focus of the “inventor” on the specific part of the system or subsystem.
“Trial and error” to solve problems or to invent new solutions has been the standard approach humanity has used to solve problems throughout its evolutionary journey. As the set of problems encountered change, the skill, knowledge and experiences gained in solving problems in previous contexts are not of much use. The inventor has to do both - learn the new context and resort to trial and error again. Typically, he tries to force-fit the previous solutions to the new problems - a rather inefficient, time consuming and random process. To change this trial and error process into a systematic method and to find a better way of inventing strong solutions had not seen much focus, until Altshuller, a young engineer, in erstwhile USSR after second world war, started exploring the patent data of many inventions and formulated a general theory of inventive problem solving, now known by the Russian acronym TRIZ.  
TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) classifies inventions into five novelty levels (For example see [1]). Figure 1 summarizes the 5 levels of inventions. At level 1 are inventions that are slight modifications of the existing systems on one parameter, for example, more reliability. Typically these are localized within a single sub-system. At level 2 are those inventions that resolve a system conflict or contradiction (called a technical contradiction between two parameters of a system), using usually inventive solutions or inventive principles used to solve similar problems in other systems. This is what resulted in the most used TRIZ tool of contradiction matrix and 40 inventive principles. In fact, since 77% of inventions were at level 1 or level 2, TRIZ in popular press and by many consultants/trainers have been reduced to exploring and explaining contradiction matrix and 40 inventive principles. 
Figure 1: 5 Levels of Inventions based on TRIZ
However, it is with deeper understanding that leads to level 3 and above inventions, TRIZ can be very powerful. At level 3, the inventions change one subsystem or resolve the system conflicts in a fundamental way. TRIZ found that about 19% inventions were at level 3. At level 4, the invention gives birth to new systems using interdisciplinary approaches. Less than 4% inventions were found to be at this level. The level 5 inventions are closer to a recently discovered scientific phenomenon. They start a new engineering discipline and have long range impact on the technological development of human race. For example, [2] considers, agriculture, money, hammer, wheel, pump, lasers, etc, as level 5 inventions.
Recently, a new tool to quantify the levels and estimate the life of an invention using the level of inventiveness as described by TRIZ, has been developed [3]. Based on the change created in the new invention compared to existing or previous version of the system (usually called “prior art” in the patent related literature), a change score is computed. The weighted sum of all proposed changes in the invention is used to estimate the level of invention and map it to 5 levels defined in TRIZ.
In this paper, we describe a framework to invent strong along with three real life case studies. In Section 2, we describe the key pointers based on quantification of levels of inventions and laws of system evolution to indicate thinking paths to increase the strength of inventions. Section 3 describes couple of case studies to indicate the usage of the methodology. Section 4 concludes the paper with pointers for further applications.


.      Conclusions
Human minds have been solving problems for inventing new solutions using trial and error. Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) developed after analysis of large number of patents, offers a radical change to the random trial and error. The theory classifies the inventions in five different levels of increasingly strong inventiveness. Using the levels of inventions and associated thinking tools of TRIZ, this paper provides a framework for invent strong. Three real life cases are described where we applied this framework to help identify and explore new paths. The key message of the case studies is that in the absence of TRIZ inputs, the inventors using the trial and error would have continued to remain at level 1 or level 2 - a mere improvement.  Further, as part of this framework, we describe a new methodology that uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) on three criteria of Novelty, Feasibility and Business Potential to map 7 laws of system evolution for higher and stronger inventions. The overall framework helps us invent strong in a more efficient manner. We propose TRIZ based framework described here should be used not only to invent strong but also to solve complex global problems.


My Book @Goodread

My GoodReads