> They don't need to think about users, scaling, marketing, etc, just the technology. While I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post as a whole, this s

> They don't need to think about users, scaling, marketing, etc, just the technology. While I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post as a whole, this statement seems to state the opposite of what the article describes. All of their greatest hits were a result of thinking about users, scaling, and marketing. A few excerpts from the article show... ...that they're thinking about users: The process starts in a research lab in the church’s basement. Designers, engineers and prototype builders crowd into a small room on one side of a two-way mirror and watch through the glass as consumers use products like, say, a bottle of Pepto-Bismol. They take notes on potential problems, such as how sick people usually take two teaspoons instead of the suggested two tablespoons, underdosing themselves. ...that they're thinking about scaling: Clients walk away with a patent plus a prototype they can send straight to a manufacturer. ...that they're thinking about marketing: GOJO had developed a goo that would clean hands, but it wouldn't sell. Nottingham Spirk added air bubbles and clear packaging, helping turn GOJO's Purell brand into America's hand sanitizer. In fact, article describes that they got their first big break when they took a company's (Rotodyne) existing manufacturing technology (rotational molding for bedpans), and figured out how that company could use their technology on a large-scale with an entirely new market (Little Tikes). The introduction even states that they don't just think about technology: Rather than invent products and then figure out how to sell them, à la Edison, the Nottingham Spirk Innovation Center invites corporate behemoths–from Procter & Gamble PG -1.07% to Mars –to come to it with its product quandaries.