Immersed in luxury, at the heart of the fusion between innovation and tradition
The luxury industry is often conservative yet has a strong desire to innovate. What matters is successfully marrying eras and crafts. How will the artisanal SME be able to position itself in the watchmaking market of the 21st century, asks Antoine Lorotte, founder and director of SME FiveCo.
Commenting on the exceptional results of LVMH, which topped the Deloitte "Global Powers of Luxury Goods" study, Bernard Arnault sent his teams a document entitled "Food for thought" in which he wrote a weighty sentence: "The innovators of today will be the leaders of tomorrow." This emphasis on innovation is all the more striking given that this luxury giant essentially brings together traditional crafts.
And so it is with the sector as a whole — extremely "conservative" (in the positive sense of the term) — encompassing watchmakers, jewellers, perfumers, leather craftsmen, trunk makers, tanners, cabinet-makers, and so on. An entire collection of trades, all the more prized for maintaining unique expertise. The notion of innovation in its common sense can seem light-years away from the main concerns of these precious players. The question that then arises is: "How do you bring a culture of innovation into a company that doesn't have one?"
Creating a new role, or even a new department, are two possibilities. But these are not always within the reach of artisanal SMEs. Collaboration with a partner, or even a supplier, then presents itself as an entirely viable solution. But how does one make such a partnership work? The subjects are not in short supply.
Building a bridge between disciplines
In a country like Switzerland, the first example that comes to mind is inevitably that of the traditional watchmaker and their precious expertise. How will the artisanal SME position itself in the 21st century watchmaking market? To do so, it will need to explore all the fundamentals of innovation in its sector: materials, precision, functionality, reliability, connectivity. If it does not have its own innovation department, it can opt for collaboration with a specialised engineering firm that brings together all the expertise and know-how to navigate the technologies and materials of tomorrow.
But collaboration does not happen spontaneously. How does one succeed in merging two cultures that are sometimes centuries apart — imagine a cabinet-maker on one side and an embedded systems engineer on the other? How does one establish the relationship of trust that will be the primary driver of collaboration and without which nothing will be possible? Efforts will need to be made on both sides to assimilate each other's language and culture.
A discourse on method
Once this first step has been taken, regardless of the craft involved, the exchange must meet certain quality criteria specific to industry — and this cannot be achieved without methodology. One must have a clear idea of the objective and deploy a multi-stage process: a precise and detailed innovation pathway. It is often at this point that collaboration between the two worlds becomes complicated. The craftsman will frequently be unfamiliar with certain practices that are mandatory steps in the innovation industry: brainstorming, market research, feasibility studies, building a study prototype, concept validation testing, and so on.
Respecting these steps is fundamental for the collaboration to produce a "harmonious chimera" that scrupulously meets the imperatives of both partners. At each step, it is essential to verify that everyone is speaking the same language — for example, it is crucial to ask the apparently trivial question "What do we mean by prototype?" or "What is the difference between a study prototype and an industrial prototype?" Failing to ask these questions can generate setbacks such as schedule overruns, leading teams down dead ends.
Reconciling aesthetic and technical aspects
The challenges of collaboration between two corporate cultures are quite similar to those found within a single entity when the design department collaborates with the research (R&D) department. One of the most famous examples is Apple, when Jonathan Ive eventually imposed his vision on Apple's engineers, forcing them to push the limits — for instance, to avoid making concessions on the integration of the iPhone's SIM card.
Another less well-known example, involving cubic houses designed by a Swiss architecture firm, illustrates the complexity and possibilities of failure. By insisting that roof overhangs be neglected, the design camp prevailed — but the originality of the project came at the expense of a fundamental requirement of the building: façade protection, without which ageing accelerates and numerous aesthetic defects follow.
Avoiding the pitfalls
It is fundamental for teams to question, from the outset, the priorities of functional, aesthetic, and technical characteristics in order to avoid certain pitfalls. There was a time when engineers paid no attention to aesthetics and were content with any old box to house a motor. Today, that era is long past and teams exchange constantly to validate the compatibility of design AND technological systems — rather like the embryo of a living organism seeking to perfect its vital functions while simultaneously refining its appearance in order to evolve.
A genuine flexibility of mind is required to understand that nothing is written in advance and that things can evolve at any moment according to everyone's needs, in respect of each party's habits and ways of working.
From the luxurious connected complication, to AI-enhanced cabinet-making, personalised perfume bottles, or unique 3D-printed wine cellar pieces — one can imagine any number of chimeras synthesising the hybridisation of a centuries-old craft tradition with the most recent advances in engineering. All of this is possible. One simply needs to successfully marry the eras and the crafts.
