The TRIZ JournalCelebrating 10 Years On The Web
Part of the RealInnovation Network
Click To Learn More About PremiumLinks
Home  >  Real Innovation Commentary
Search:
  • Subscribe
  • What is TRIZ?
  • Contradiction Matrix
    & 40 Principles
  • Archives
  • Best Practices
    • General
    • Software, Innovation and Creativity
    • Consultants, Innovation and Creativity
  • Call For Papers
  • Dictionary
  • Events Calendar
  • Jobs
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Discussion Forum
  • Related Topics
  • Business Process Mgt
  • Innovation
  • Outsourcing
  • Six Sigma
  • Quick Access
  • Help
  • Search
  • Advertising
  • Article Archive
  • Newsletter Archive
  • Reader Feedback
  • Editorial Panel
Ellen Domb

Commentary by Ellen Domb

Email and RSSSubscribe via Email or RSS   |   Ellen Domb's Biography Biography
December 20, 2009
Print | Email

Dark Dining, a Trimming Experience

Trimming is a TRIZ technique of improving something by simplifying it (and a small joke in English.) Most often in TRIZ it refers to products or systems where the complexity has increased cost or decreased maintainability, serviceability, ease of use, etc. My husband and I got a gift that let us experience an extreme form of trimming used to create an innovation in experience.

We walked into Opaque, a dimly lit empty nightclub in Santa Monica, California. (There are others in Vienna, Paris, San Francisico and elsewhere. See www.darkdining.com) We are greeted and given menus with limited choices--2 salads, 4 entrees, 2 desserts, wine by the glass only. After choosing the meal, we are introduced to Michael, our guide/waiter/helper, who is blind. I put my hand on Michael's shoulder, Bill puts his hand on my shoulder, and we "elephant walk" into the darkest room I have ever been in except for a cave exploration trip. Yes, what has been trimmed from this dining experience is light, and the diner's ability to see the food, the table setting, the presentation of the food, and one's companion. The theory of the restaurant is that taking away light will enhance the diners' other senses and focus the diners' attention on the taste, texture, and aromas of the food. And yes, they reject all the dogma of the restaurant industry that presentation of the food is important, "we taste first with our eyes."

Michael guided us through sitting down: "Put your hand out. This is the back of your chair. Touch the seat, now move forward a half step and sit down. In front of you on the table is a napkin, wrapped around the fork and a butter knife...." We started with an amuse bouche that was a tiny tomato stuffed with herbs and goat cheese, served on a ceramic spoon, as a single bite. This was the easiest part of the meal! When Michael brought the bread basket, the butter was in a small dish which Bill and I each put fingers in trying to find it, and we eventually just dipped the bread in butter rather than using the knife. The salads were very good, but it took a combination of fork and fingers to get the greens.

I was surprised that Michael did not give us orientation to the entree plate. The steak was cut into fairly large pieces, and we did get sharp knives in case we were brave enough to cut it smaller, but we didn't know where the broccoli or the spinach was. Aroma didn't help, since everything was heavily garlicked.

Desserts were both soft (eat with just a spoon) and probably the best food of the meal, but again, there were surprises: the chocolate lava cake was decorated with raspberries which we found after eating the cake, and the mango panna cotta also had hidden fruit. Michael guided us back to the lobby, where we washed up (very little damage), paid, and departed just as the nightclub part of the operation was getting started.

Did the "trimmed" experience work? The diners definitely focused (hmmm, optics analogy) on each other and on the experience. We tried to guess how many tables there were, what the relationships between the other diners were, why the chefs and designers had made certain choices about the food and the method of presenting the meal, etc. Unfortunately, the food and the wine were just OK, not excellent, and that interferes with my ability to evaluate the experience of the blind dining. It was definitely interesting, but too expensive to repeat for the actual dining.

Trimming lesson: In this case, they removed one element of the experience in order to be unique, not in order to simplify the experience. They succeeded in being unique, but the question is still open whether they will be a commercially successful innovation.

You could duplicate this experience at home, if you have a room with no windows, or try it in your city if you have one of the other "Dark Dining" venues. Readers' comments are welcome! Best wishes to all our readers for a happy, healthy, and INNOVATIVE 2010!


Comments [8] | Permalink
Categories: General

COMMENTARY COMMENT
ADD A COMMENT

posted by  shyam December 22, 2009 at 3:43 am
Ellen, thanks for the post! Now I know where not to go for dinner!! Sure sounds like a nightmare.
I think what you say in the end is exactly it. The trimming was done just to be unique. And I cant see how it simplifies anything in this case. On the contrary, it complictes.
Coming to think of it, does this example really fit into the TRIZ technique of trimming at all?
 


posted by  Ellen Domb  [ http://www.trizpqrgroup.com ] December 22, 2009 at 10:10 am
In the ASIT method, they have a process in which you trim each aspect of a product or service, then go look for a customer who would benefit from that modified system (example: television without the pictures, for people who want to hear a favorite program while driving a car.) This does fit that model, although I think it will be a very small market of food experimentalists. If the food had been better, or if they had done dramatic things with aroma and texture, then they might have a bigger market. Since I did not explore the business (I was dining, not consulting!) I don't know if there was simplification certainly they don't have to have fancy plates or flower arrangements, or worry about color of the food.. This kind of example should remind us that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something; a final kitchen example: one could cook without any herbs or spices, and make both shopping and cooking simpler, but the food would be much less interesting.
 


posted by  Prakash  [ http://trizindia.org ] December 22, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Hi Ellen,

Good posting at the right time, when people ready to go to holiday, and experience eating out etc.. hope this will encourage many to find some TRIZ elements in the places they go.

The first thought I had was, whether this dining experience is similar to what Christensen defined, identifying the non-customer market, such as in this case blind people! However, it looks like there are more normal people going to this places, and the trimming is more applicable to get the"uniqueness" experience than reducing the complexity of the system, here it is dining experience.
 


posted by  shyam December 23, 2009 at 0:14 am
Ellen, thanks for the reply. Brings in more 'trimming and simplification' context to the example. Forgive me, but I cant resist thinking about other sorts of simplifications possible here like dirty plates and table cloth or half filled wine glasses!(sorry!)
But your point that something should not be done just because it could be done is very valid. So how do we prevent that? With a top down appraoch, where the techniques are dictated by the needs and not by a bottom up approach as in this case?
Within the TRIZ/innovation framework, what else ensures the market acceptabiity of the innovation?
 


posted by  Ellen Domb  [ http://www.trizpqrgroup.com ] December 23, 2009 at 12:11 pm
History shows us that NOTHING "ensures" market acceptability of an innovation one reason for Altshuller's interest in developing creative personalities was his disappointment in how few real innovations were adopted, and all consultants can tell each other stories of clients who developed breakthrough innovations (frequently in their first TRIZ class!) but then never implemented the innovation, usually because of lack of resources.

I think that the probability of success is enhanced (not ensured) by coupling TRIZ with a disciplined, detailed understanding of the market and the potential market. My experience has been primarily with QFD (quality function deployment) and the related ODI (outcome-driven innovation) method which use different voice of the customer/ethonographic research methods, to understand both current customers and potential customers. Darrell Mann has a number of TRIZ Journal articles on understanding how the customer demographics, particularly birth decade, can help predict the success of specific innovations.

Other methods, systems, observations?
 


posted by  shyam December 24, 2009 at 0:52 am
Ellen, you bring up two aspects on the success/failure of innovation. One is the lack of resources which prevents the innovation from reaching the target customer(shot down by the corporate structure?)the other is the acceptance of innovation by the target customer.
For the second part I believe that there is a strong positive relationship between customer delight and success of the product.

Having said that, it reminds me of a conversation I had with the CTO of a high-tech equipment manufacturer. I asked "Do you feel that it is true that a customer is easier to delight if his expectations from you is not well defined? " He replied "if the seller is a sophisticated one, then it is true as the selling has a chance to influence the expectation. If the seller is not a sophisticated one, having the expectation well defined would be easier for the seller to cope with"
Can we say that commercially successful innovation comes up more often in sectors where the seller is more sophisticated than the customer?
 


posted by  Ellen Domb  [ http://www.trizpqrgroup.com ] December 24, 2009 at 10:18 am
This sounds like a great topic for some serious research do you know any graduate students in marketing? I tested your hypothesis with my personal database (experience and gut feel) and came up with many examples AND counter-examples, so I won't begin to guess. Certainly there are many examples of the supplier not anticipating how the customer will use the product, but I"m not sure that's a measure of relative sophistication. Another issue: the part of the selling process where expectations are set and the product is sold is much later than the development part, where the supplier is understanding the customers' needs and creating the system (product, service, etc.) to satisfy those needs.
 


posted by  shyam December 25, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Ellen, thanks for your comments.
Just a clarification on your second point. The 'seller' in my comment above would mean the supplier whose activities will encompass the whole of product development, from market research to product development to sustenance.

The above CTO comment comes from an industry where the supplier is pretty much trying to play catch up with customers on technology requirements. That must the reason that prompted that comment on relative sophistication.
Another aspect I have always thought about is industry maturity or technology maturity. For example, the maturity of the ball pen industry vs the mobile music players (iPod etc)industry.
Does the maturity of the technology play a part in deciding its capability of delivering breakthrough innovation? What role does market sophistication play here? Remember, the technology of the ball pen delivered a breakthrough innovation at one point in time, but not anymore.
 

ADD COMMENT
(*) indicates required fields
author (*) :
email address :
url :
 
  bold italic underline add hyperlink add email hyperlink centre unorder list order list add image quote emoticon smiles
 
comment (*) :

max characters : 1500

characters remaining :
remember me :
To help us prevent spam-generated submissions,
please enter the summation of 3 and 8 below:
 
 
 
Homepage

Contact me

Bookmark this page

RECENT ENTRIES
RSS
  • Innovation Wars?
  • Open Innovation and TRIZ
  • TRIZ India Summit Day 2
  • TRIZ India Summit Day 1
  • TRIZ in Six Sigma at DoD
  • Continuous Innovation Enables Breakthrough

LATEST COMMENTS
  • Searching for Industries With the Greatest Pain ... The Story Continues by jewellery earrings
  • Open Innovation and TRIZ by Maria Thompson
  • Open Innovation and TRIZ by Ellen Domb
  • Teaching Innovation by Jane Anderson
  • Observations on the TRIZ Developers Summit 2010 by Ellen Domb
  • TRIZ India Summit Day 2 by Prof Gautam Mohanty

COMMENTATORS
Ellen Domb [90]  RSS Ellen Domb's Biography
Katie Barry [54]  RSS Katie Barry's Biography
Jack Hipple [47]  RSS Jack Hipple's Biography
Praveen Gupta [42]  RSS Praveen Gupta's Biography
Michael S. Slocum [34]  RSS Michael S. Slocum's Biography
Cass Pursell [29]  RSS Cass Pursell's Biography
James Todhunter [21]  RSS James Todhunter's Biography
Lynda Curtin [11]  RSS Lynda Curtin's Biography
Michael Cyger [10]  RSS Michael Cyger's Biography
Guest Commentator [9]  RSS Guest Commentator's Biography
Prakasan Kappoth [9]  RSS Prakasan Kappoth's Biography
Bob Carter [4]  RSS Bob Carter's Biography
Rod King [4]  RSS Rod King's Biography
Bob Malanga [2]  RSS Bob Malanga's Biography
Kady Srinivasan [2]  RSS Kady Srinivasan's Biography
All Commentators

CATEGORIES
About Commentators [15]  RSS
Buzz/Press [64]  RSS
Companies [23]  RSS
Conference [91] RSS
General [130]  RSS
Leadership [23]  RSS
Management [82]  RSS
Methodology [117]  RSS
Strategy [102]  RSS

ARCHIVES
RSS
  

* Current Month
* Full Archive



Ad Links
Business Innovation in the 21st Century (eBook)

Advertise on Real Innovation and The TRIZ Journal


Legal Information. © 2006 CTQ Media. All rights reserved. v1.0, 1.0 Submit an Article • About The TRIZ Journal • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Site Map