“Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought.”
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

Sometimes problems, challenges and issues are so common that nobody really stopped for a moment to really think about them. Listerine mouthwash became successful not because it was a great mouthwash, but because they addressed the problem of bad breath (which many have from time to time)and elevated the issue through marketing and public awareness. Once you make the public aware of the issues that ‘’All have seen and none have addressed’ the rest is history.

Thanks for sharing James, this looks great to see things differently !!
I’ll try next time ;)

Cedric,
So right, the game is completely changed without a net. But that is why it is a “Variation” game. The fact is that they submitted it at the right time with the right sponsor.

In the scenario I gave the issues came up and they modified the product as they come up. This is a form of RAD or rapid application design. In RAD you throw a simplistic prototype together and use it. The issues that come up become your claims as you resolve the issues. The claims are the “problems solved”.

The other process for design is is JAD or Joint Application Design. This is where the customer or sponsor is very involved in the product design. Requirements Gathering becomes an essential skill… These are both business analysis/ computer programming terms but I have found that I look at all projects as one or the other.

WOW, your reinactment is entertaining ! I can totally imagine your scenario happening.

Anyway, the story seems much longer and less memorable than the one of Brad and Melinda or Betsy.
And I feel that EN are more attracted by catchy stories like those two.

IMO Monster Pong is too different from traditional Ping Pong to be reasonably compared.Portability, level altering,… are really a plus, but you also lose things: less surface means less complex play, less challenge because no more net, …
It’s almost as comparing tennis with futnet. Both are fun but the nature of the game is really different.

I disagree to a certain degree… Let’s think of HOW Monster Pongtm could have came about.

Somewhere on Anycampus USA…

“Dude, let’s play ping pong”

“OK dude, but I dont feel like going down to the gameroom, besides I think it’s closed”
“I wish we had a ping pong table in our room!”

“Man, where would you put a pingpong table?”

“DUDE! We could use a card table… I have one here”

“COOL!”

…

“Man, That was cool but it was too small”
“Maybe, we should each have a card table”

“Cool, let’s do that next time…”
“Bring your Card table next time…”

“NO WAY! You bring yours over to my room!”

“Dude, no way, lets just meet in the hall way”

“Cool!”

“Got your card table?”

“Yeah, let’s do it like beer pong”
“I brought the cups”

“Whoah, Yeah! COOL!”
--

Frat guy 3- “Whatcha guys doin?”

“COOL, I got next game!”

“That was cool, but we should all be able to play at the same time!”

“The cups on top of the table is awkward and interferes with the game. Let’s cut a hole in the center that fits the cup sort of like pool.”

“Dude, let’s all meet in gym”
“Bring your Table… Who is bringing the beer?

“Dudes, welcome!”
“Sort of like hacky sack, put the tables in a circle”

“We should change the shape to be able to fit more people in the game…”

“Finally, maybe this thing is marketable…
“Dude, that’s is a monsterous good time… Let’s call it Monster Pong”

Of course this was a reinactment, writer has no knowledge of the actual events that transpired to develop Monster Pong. Any similarities are purely coincidental and not meant to cause any harm or offend.

James,

thank you too for your input (you guys are really involved, that’s great ! )

I also totally agree with you about what Monster Pong offers.
But if I buy it one day, it’s because it’s challenging, and not because it’s social, portable, less expensive, space friendly, etc…
These arguments are coming because we are trying to find what are the benefits. I’m almost sure that Matt didn’t think: “ok, let’s try to invent a new game that would be scalable + elevated intensity of Play + Space Friendly + Social + portable + less expensive”.

On the opposite, we immediately understand that Brad and Melinda wanted to find a solution for kid bowls falling down. Then they came to Gyro Bowl. We don’t even need to explain it.

See what I mean?

Rion, thanks for your input.

I still believe that EN prefer products that are clearly born from a problem like Eggies or Gyro bowl: someone finds a problem and starts to look for a solution to eliminate it.
Unfortunately for me, the process is almost always the opposite: I find an idea and then I try to find which problem it solves. As you proposed, If I ask myself why I would use the product, I find an answer that fits. But soon I realize that other products do the same (take Eggies or Gyro Bowl: no other product do the same). So I try to find another problem, and in the end (as Monster Pong) I solve many little problems, but not one big! This would probably be a problem for marketing issues….

I totally agree with you on the principle that the problem has to b perceived by only a target group of people. But as Roger Brown stated, EN is looking for mass market products, not niches.

https://www.getmonsterpong.com/?rtag=monsterpon...;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZBI-zX3Nak
Monster Pong offers
~Scalability
~elevated intensity of Play (This is important when it comes to skillbased activities. Pinpong is skill based)
~Space Friendly
~Social
~portable
~Less expensive

I am sure I am missing something but those are all potential problems of traditional ping pong and I am a pingpong player. In the case of the “To and From”, users would be running “To” a new product because of the afore mentioned reasons. Not that they would necessarily be running “From” the traditional game. The introduction of a new product in a skill based activity must honor the tradition and offer one or more features as benefits that hit a basic appeal.

This is actually a basic skill in “Serialization of Chaos”. I call it “Trajectory of Evolution”. The history of a product defines why and how a product has evolved. An observable trend is can be demonstrated in current evolutions of a generational product.

Specifically, look at the razor. From straight flip razor of steel to surgical steel to a handle perpendicular to the blade to 2 blades to 3 blades to lotion strip, to 4, to 5 blades… That is all driven by the basic social expectation that men be clean shaven…

Monster Pong is like the multiplication of the blades

Chappy!

Caveat:

It’s not important that everyone have the problem you have in mind – there’s plenty of people who don’t wear eyeglasses, for example… they wouldn’t care about eyeglass screws that were easier to use. The point is that there are SOME people who PERCIEVE a problem, and that your invention provides a solution to that percieved problem, real or otherwise. The investor is going to evaluate the magnitude of the percieved problem in terms of market size and competition, and do some math to determine if it’s worth introducing your idea as a product in that marketplace, or if extant products already swamp the marketplace and new competition wouldn’t be profitable in a reasonable time domain.

using your monster pong example, I’d say it’s an ease-of-use solution.

Lots of things have non-obvious “problems” which they solve.

If you just ask yourself why you would use your product, or why you would use it over something else, then you should have the solution part of your question answered. Just work backwards to the problem ;-)

Example: Monster pong allows a variety of gameplay variations, and provides easy storage and transport, while a conventional ping-pong table is large, monolithic, and only allows a limited number of players and gameplay configurations.

it’s ease-of-use, as well as a bang-for-your-buck improvement over existing technology. problem, solution, done!

Likewise with an invention i saw on here recently – screws and bolts with little snap-off shaft extensions that let you drop it into a threaded hole and it stays in place until you screw it down. Works great on tiny screws for eyeglasses and electronics (with through holes) and on blind holes or hard-to-reach places on things like automotive engines and accessories where you have to reach under or behind another assembly to put a screw in, and then finger tighten it, etc. etc.

This is also an ease-of-use issue that is solved, and possibly a money saver, since a slightly more expensive fastener replaces a cheaper one that has a high rate of loss or damage due to size/dexterity limitations.

Try rephrasing your question before you beat yourself over the head with the question that EN asks on their form – often the solution is in the question itself, when properly asked. Hope that helps,

Cheers.

Hi you guys, we are wanting to solve a problem of shopping for clothes for girls with an ease of going to one section of the store and grabbing our product: DreamMe in Bag for convience and quality. We want our product to change the world of shopping for moms, dads and young girls with our innovation creative method of mix and match and choose the bag.

I would just fill in the space with an “n/a”. EN won’t decide against an idea based solely on how that field is filled out. If it’s a great idea, I’m sure they’d look right past it. Best of luck to you!

Perfect Margaret, I understand it better now! Thank you very much: “…that field on the EN submission form did not come in to play with Monster Pong. It doesn’t apply.”

“Most of my innovations/inventions are born from a problem I am having with something. In those cases, the question is easy to answer.”. Unfortunately for me, my ideas are almost never born from a problem….

“What problem or issue does your product/technology solve or address?”

Most of my innovations/inventions are born from a problem I am having with something. In those cases, the question is easy to answer. But I have entered a couple of ideas that weren’t really resolving a problem I was having. One was a craft kit idea. I can’t think of any real problem that a craft kit solves for me except that it can cure my kids’ boredom, but the sponsor was trying to find kits that kids could do with no, or minimal, parental involvement (a problem for the company).

With the exception of the Innovation Funds and ASOTV, EN’s searches are looking for solutions to specific “problems” that the search sponsor or their customer is having. So that question is probably in place to make sure that you have addressed the problem requested, and maybe to show you solved some others in the process.

The thing with Monster Pong is that it is an Everyday Edisons product. It was chosen from an Everyday Edisons casting call to be developed for the show, which has some different requirements than the EN searches. So that field on the EN submission form did not come in to play with Monster Pong. It doesn’t apply.

Thanks Margaret for your answer. The statement is a good summary, it’s true! Unfortunately EN asks only for problems, not for needs, wants, and challenges.

I agree that I’m a little obsessed with this “problem solving” question. It is because I have the feeling that EN is really attracted by products that solve ONE problem, and solve it very clearly. My concern is to find a way to developp ideas that match well with EN vision.

I’m sure everyone will answer the same that you did for Eggies. Everyone knows the problem and identify immediately the benfit of the solution.

But for Monster Pong, it’s not so clear.
1: there is not only 1 problem solved.
2: not everyone will agree that ping pong tables are too large.
3: not everyone will see a problem that ping pong tables are not easily portable
4: I remember playing with many players who had different levels (turntable) and it was a lot of fun.
5: the price could be the best argument, but we all agree there is more benefit than this…

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the product is not fantastic !!

It’s just that I don’t know how to answer this specific EN question….

I think you are fixating too much on the “problem” solving aspect of inventing/innovating. I think this statement I found on a website today sums it up:

“Opportunities are needs, wants, problems, and challenges that point to a market—to customers who would buy the innovative solutions that you create to meet the needs, satisfy the wants, solve the problems, or meet the challenges.”

http://www.mvp.cfee.org/en/ideasopportunities1....

So, to answer your question:

1. peeling eggs can be messy and wasteful.
2. Ping Pong tables are too large. They are not easily portable. They are too challenging or not challenging enough depending on who is playing. They are too expensive.

I’ll try to ask my question in a different way with a short exercise:
How would you fill the following?
1- the problem solved by Eggies is ……
2- the problem solved by Monster Pong is …..

Thank you all for your feedbacks!

@John: this Zackman process looks very interesting, thanks for sharing. I wonder how you would use it to clarify what problem does Monster Pong solve?

@Darwin: sometimes, ideas are funny and unexpected, but still do not solve a problem !

@Greg: you are almost the only one who really tried to answer my first question, thanks! But I’m still not convinced, sorry ;)
The problem solved by Monster Pong is not clear. Is it that traditionnal ping pong is:
1= boring ?
2= bulky ?
3= two players, possibly four ?
4= only 1 challenge level ?

@James: I had never heard of circular chess, that’s amazing!
Your “to and from” process is very clever. How would you use it to clarify what problem does Monster Pong solve?

@Bob: The “Need fulfilled” option is quite interesting, but I’m not convinced that the need of recreation/play is strong enough for EN. You could state this for probably 100% of Kids only or Fisher Price submissions.

@Margaret: I didn’t know neither, but it seems that circular chess has a huge historical background (see wikipedia for further info).

Margaret:

You’re welcome – the Zackman Framework takes a while to get your ‘head around’; since most people are used to thinking in terms of the Physical representation only. However, for the EN submission questions, using Zackman Rows 1 & 2 (Contextual and Conceptual) will adequately describe your idea.

Chess boards are round now??? I guess it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a chess set.

John – the Zackman Framework is useful. Thanks for sharing it

No Bob, the sun just revolves around you.

The North Pole is in the middle of the top. The South Pole is on the bottom (My Aussie friends deny that and claim the opposite, but I don’t listen to them.)

The tropics are at the edges. That’s why they’re so much hotter – they’re that much closer to the Sun, as it revolves around us.

lol bob!

I think the field “Problem Solved” could also be looked at as asking for “Need Fulfilled”. In the case of Monster Pong, people like recreation/play, and MP fulfills that need.

RE: “The earth was once perceived to be flat and now it is round.”

Correct. It’s round like a Frisbee.

Stagnency in design is a problem and new designs add interest. The earth was once perceived to be flat and now it is round. Chess boards use to be square and now they are round. There has to be a reason to change the design of something.

~What effect does the design change have?
~What happened to make you think of that change?
~Why would somebody change from the old design to the new design?
~How will the end user newly experience that product with a new design?
~What is important about the new experience?

For people to buy into a new product, they are either running “from something” or “to something”. Get into the reason for the “to and from”, then define it… That is your problem solved.

Novelty and entertainment products solve the problem of boredom. That doesn’t give it a place in the market, there should be some factor or factors that will bump another product from the shelf in favor of yours; that factor is what will get the consumer to spend money on your product rather than the next one.

“Monster Pong” is entertainment, but when contrasted to regular ping pong it solves certain problems. A ping pong table is bulky, Monster Pong is portable. Ping pong is two players, possibly four. Monster Pong allows many variations. Even two player the challenge level can be altered by moving the tables.

I’ve found trying to think of solutions for submissions here has really sharpened the way I see potential products and given me paths to enhance ideas I already have.

Think of the advantage your product has. Then move backwards to the solution area. When I come up with something new, it seems so natural that I don’t think of it as a solution till I think it through a bit.

Hi Cedric:

As a aid to completing the submission questions, you might find using the Zackman Framework helpful. More specifically, viewing your idea from a Contextual stand point; whereby you examine the following:

Why – will poeple use this product?
How – will the product be used?
What – features does this product have and in comparison to other similar products?
Who – will use the product, (demographics)?
Where – will this product be used?
When – will this product be used?

At the Contextual level you can not allow yourself to be bogged down in details – view your idea from a distance (sort of speak).

Beyond the submission questions, if you are providing a separate attachment with you submission, you may wish to present your idea from all levels of the Zackman Framework (Contextual, Conceptual, Logical, Physical and Detailed).

For more information on the Zackman process, you can look at Wikipedia.
Good luck