The Fusion: How to Combine Scientific Rigor and Exploratory Creativity

Introduction: The Innovation Dilemma – Science vs. Exploration

When delving into new product development where the unknowns are many there are different approaches to identifying a viable solution. The scientific method has been a well tested and generally approved approach, where hypotheses are formed and experiments designed with the goal of invalidating the hypothesis. There is also the Edisonian approach which is a trial and error method to achieve a goal.

When searching for a solution it is helpful to think of a design space as being a box, whether 2D or 3D. The solution is somewhere in the box and unknown by the product development team. The team starts somewhere and starts working in a design, test, validate methodology.

The Scientific Method: A Foundation of Rigor

PhD’s are trained in the scientific method, which is a methodical and iterative method. The PhD will read the literature to understand where others have done work before them. The adage goes, a day in the library is worth a day in the lab. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel. From this starting point of knowledge, the researcher will pick a starting point, which may be very far away (or near) the solution.

The Edisonian Approach: Embracing Exploration and Discovery

The other approach is the exploratory method, which is somewhat unstructured. A competent person may read some literature but they may also have a curious mind. This person may use some technical basis to support trying lots of different ideas to quickly explore the cause and affect of their ideas. They then use the observation and data to learn.

Strengths and Weaknesses: Comparing the Two Approaches

Both methods have their value. The first is methodical and by nature slower, at least at first. The second is somewhat unstructured and likely much quicker to enact. The methodical approach is great for answering complex and deep technical problems. The exploratory approach is great for vetting ideas and getting quick feedback but struggles when technical complexities arise. Of course, with each new idea comes new challenges and more unanswered questions.

The Hybrid Approach: Combining Method and Exploration for Optimal Innovation

The exploratory approach allows for creative thinking. The methodical approach allows for establishing a technical basis. My experience is that both have their value. Some individuals are great at being methodical and others at the creative idea generation and validation. The best approach is to utilize both approaches, ideally having a hybrid approach.

The hybrid approach allows for some exploratory work and some additional detailed work. Before diving into any crazy experiments, it is best to read the literature to gain a baseline. Next brainstorm ideas, using the technical basis to support why they justify some further exploration. I have found as a people leader that sometimes a little blind trust in these early stages can yield interesting results that later become the basis for a new technology platform.

Practical Application: Early-Stage Exploration and Later-Stage Refinement

Once the initial interesting results occur, the design of experiments (DOE) and detailed research and development work can begin. This “shotgun” approach is really only valid for small-scale, low-cost experiments. Once a design is nearly finalized and the team is close to the solution, taking a trial-and-error approach can be costly, both in dollars and reputation. My observation is that in software development, particularly with cloud-based solutions, the ‘build, test, validate’ approach outlined in ‘The Lean Startup’ is often cost-effective due to rapid development and deployment.

In contrast, when developing a physical product, the costs become very large as scale-up begins, such as in a vehicle platform. Simply building the first prototype vehicle is extremely expensive, and the CAPEX for manufacturing a vehicle platform is even more so. This hybrid approach is most useful in early-stage technology development. It is also useful when trying to solve a specific problem within a larger product development. For example, when determining how to implement AI solutions into a vehicle platform (or any product), this hybrid approach can be employed.

A build, test, validate approach allows for quick learning as the AI solutions, hardware, and user interfaces are developed. This allows for rapid technology development while gathering consumer feedback. But eventually, the hard work of refinement, resolving issues, and scaling comes into play. This can only be accomplished while focusing on a single defined design approach. The end goal being refinement of a single solution and resolution of issues that inhibit deployment of that solution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, effective innovation requires a nuanced approach. There’s no single ‘right’ answer, but achieving a viable solution efficiently and cost-effectively is critical. Both purely scientific and purely exploratory paths can lead to waste, highlighting the value of a hybrid approach. The most successful innovators understand how to blend these methods, adapting their strategy to the specific challenges of each project. Ultimately, innovation is a journey of continuous learning and adaptation