I've been thinking a lot lately about innovation and how we may have
emphasized one component at the expense of another. Here I'm talking
about something that should appear obvious - the focus of innovation in
building new things. We are constantly reminded that innovation is
about building new products and services and experiences. And this
definition is entirely right and proper.
But I think it
neglects something very important. I was reminded of this recently
when at dinner with an executive from a large manufacturing concern.
This company makes many different products, one of them components for
mattresses. Now, all of us want far more innovation to make mattresses
more comfortable, to make them last longer and so on. But, strange to
think, the internal coil mattress is actually a very complicated
product, a virtual lasagna of layers of cover, cotton, and steel. While
that finished product is very comfortable, it is very difficult to
deconstruct when an individual is finished with the product. And herein
lies the rest of the blog post.
How might we make our products easily deconstructable?
I've
been thinking about this ever since that conversation, because when we
bought a new mattress for our son we asked the company that delivered
the new one (and hauled away the old one) what would happen to the old
mattress. Goes into the landfill, they said. And I thought, what a
terrible outcome. So much of the mattress could be reused - the cotton
batting, the inner springs, some of the foam siding. But the cost of
deconstructing a mattress, which wasn't designed to be easily taken
apart, makes it difficult to get a lot of reuse from the components.
Here's
the question - are we willing to accept slightly less sleek or
beautiful products that would become far more easily deconstructed, and
therefore far friendlier to the environment and creating components that
could be reused? Why doesn't innovation focus on the obsolescence
problem - what happens when a product reaches near end of life and
should be easily deconstructed to reuse the component parts?
This
is question of design, of cost and of conscience. For years consumers
have acquired shiny new products and discarded them without a thought as
to what happens to the finished good once it goes into the waste
stream. If you've ever seen people taking apart circuit boards by hand,
or seen large electronic devices or mattresses go into the waste
stream, you'll know that we are 1) dumping a lot of stuff that won't
decompose well into large pits and 2) there is inherent value in this
waste stream but our designs don't anticipate or accommodate the simple
deconstruction of a finished good.
What if innovation and design focused on deconstruction as well?
I
think that there is a huge opportunity for companies to create products
that can be easily taken apart once the product end of life is
reached. Doing so may require changes to the manufacturing and
packaging of a product. Making it easier to deconstruct may make the
product less visually appealing or less sleek, but it is something we
can do and should be thinking about as we design new products. Too
often innovators think about building the shiny new product but don't
fully consider what happens when a product reaches end of life, and
frankly we ought to be far more concerned about how products are being
deconstructed or simply dumped into the Earth.
Could we
be as innovative in the deconstruction of a product at its end of life
as we are about its initial design and development? Would it cost a lot
more to build a product that could be easily deconstructed and taken
apart for its components, to encourage reuse and recycling? I think the
market for fully recyclable or reuseable products is out there, waiting
for this. Good innovators should be thinking not just about creating
new products, but how to quickly and easily build products that can be
deconstructed as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.