Your design is very cool,I am also interested in industrial design,could you please give me some suggestions on how to learn industrial design,such as how to design products,which software is good,which books should I read.TKS.

In regards to the cost of administration, only people, who are stakeholders in a concept, would really require to have an input. Therefore if you are a stakeholder and a risk owner (IPO, buyer, investor, environmentalists, supplier, manufacturer and the brand) naturally you are more likely to be interested in your investment and it’s outcome, the product.

If we look at the Incentive proposition:
• The incentive for sharing an idea is, to find people how would want to realize the product.
• The incentives of the IP owner are the development costs, equity and royalties.
• The incentive for the stakeholders is, equity growth.
• The incentive for the pre-purchaser is, a lower price.
• The incentives for the suppliers, manufacturer and the brands are to create work and wealth.
• The incentives for the environment are fewer resources are used; higher standards can be applied to manufacturing and possessing.
• The incentives for the worker are, fair relationship and pay.
• The inventive for the consumer is, the act of responsibility.
• The incentive for the humanity is a flexile market economy system.
The other aspect on this subject could be attributed to people’s sociology to desire to be involved and empowered. (An investment that allows the investor not to be helpless in their decision)

innocentive.com is an interesting approach, however in the idea exchange model the value proposition is completely different, the IP Owner has the freedom of operating in his or her zone of core competence there by creating a different set of solutions. The market selects, what it deems an acceptable reward to resource relationship. The application of criteria is crucial.

What makes this better then the existing markets, is the fact that the oversights on products are not honest, efficient or detailed enough. Not all aspect of product lifecycle or manufacturing processes is looked at independently. Additionally there are not enough criteria’s set on products being manufactured, such as: efficiency, ecological, labeling, fair wage, ethical, carbon tax, % renewable energy consumed on products we buy.

To address your comment in regards to translating physical waste into informational or organizational waste, I would also like to get more information on this issue. However, if the case were, a positive factor in this transformation could be credited to changing finite resources to renewable one, human power, to creating jobs.

Any skill should be in its zone of core competence, it is the manufacturing companies core competency to develop processes to manufacture parts or components. A paradigm shift in manufacturing would naturally create new solutions and vise versa if an idea that is fed into the system requires a new manufacturing method only the stakeholders can address these needs by assessing the value/cost proposition to develop new solutions, the incentive is always balanced by demand.

I am sharing this idea to generate interest in creating a test scenario, finding collaborators and stakeholders. I do invite all who can add value to this process to contact me.

Thank you again,
Ramak Radmard

Product Development, Design Thinking
http://www.lucidream.com
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

First, how do you deal with the cost of administration? Every time someone in the network participates, that’s a tiny cost to them. In certain circumstances, participants are fine absorbing these costs. But in others, the system collapses because participants feel too disconnected from the profit realized at the end. An example to look at might be Innocentive.com, or other pay per idea, contest-type sites.

Second, what makes this better then the market as it exists? All of these feedback loops are in place, just not as explicitly, or as elegantly as you have described. I wonder if a new system might be simply translating physical waste into informational or organizational waste — and commensurately longer development times.

Lastly, why does the system need to be so top-down? Rather than innovate on how to create the ideas that get fed into the same old manufacturing infrastructure, one could alter the manufacturing so that it was easier for people with ideas to get them realized. Then, the broadcast capabilities of the existing internet will enable selection of the “best” or “right” ideas. The major advantage of this method, is that even low-demand products can still be manufactured, because demand drives whether they are created or not. Currently, risk drives the creation of products. Target sells products that it thinks will appeal to the average American: Shooting for a large user group in the first place gives a cushion if the design is off mark. Risk-averse design under serves niches, since they are too small to offer acceptable buffers.

Do you have any plans for testing the concept? It seems like something at least worthy of further investigation.

Cheers,
Dominic Muren
http://www.humblefacture.com