November 22, 2007 at 13:27New rules for innovators
According to FastCompany.com, November 2007
New Rules for Innovators
Rule 1. One head is good - and a collective mind is better.
The image of a lone genius, secluded in a gloomy garage or basement, is traditionally associated with innovation and inventions. However, according to Andrew Hargadon, professor of technology management at the University of California, in most cases, this far-fetched image has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, if the business ends with innovation, then as a rule, whole groups are participants in the process. Professor Hargadon’s book, “How Breakthroughs Are Made,” suggests that innovation is largely driven by the collaboration of entire networks. Formal or semi-formal associations of people or entire projects with the participation of consumers, suppliers and even competitors, these social networks are maximally focused on building relationships and interacting around a common task. Another feature which the professor notes in his book, is that ideas are rarely truly new. Often these are just fresh combinations of previously expressed suggestions. Therefore, the diversity of participants in the innovation process, their ideas and experience, is the key to successful innovation. Hence the conclusion that the best way to ruin a good idea is to consider it on a committee that must make a decision in a consistent manner. It’s better to find someone who pushes all participants with their heads and adds fuel to the fire of a heated discussion. that the best way to ruin a good idea is to consider it on a committee that must make a decision in a consistent manner. It’s better to find someone who pushes all participants with their heads and adds fuel to the fire of a heated discussion. that the best way to ruin a good idea is to consider it on a committee that must make a decision in a consistent manner. It’s better to find someone who pushes all participants with their heads and adds fuel to the fire of a heated discussion.
Rule 2. It is an honor to be the first, but the patient is more successful.
The theory of the advantage provided by the primacy of market entry is debunked in Nicholas Carr's book, The Shine and Poverty of IT. According to him, with the emergence of truly revolutionary technology, great market opportunities open up only for the "second tier" of those who will eliminate the consequences of the revolutionary devastation that has arisen. Pioneers, however, can suffer the fate of the witches who are lit at the stake or driven out. Carr explains his phenomenon by saying that innovators run too fast ahead of consumers who are inherently terribly inert and lazy when it comes to change. For this reason, many of the great ideas of the first wave of dotcoms simply did not live to the point where they could truly benefit consumers. Successful innovators like Toyota or Wall-Mart don't break existing technology barriers, but use them. A good example from the Internet industry is the NetFlix movie sale service. It would seem that it hindered making a bet on downloading films on the network. But no, the films are recorded on discs, which are delivered to customers by the usual and reliable US postal service.
Rule 3. The more you try, the more luck.
The best way to get a good idea is to have many ideas, Linus Pauling said. Innovation is like learning artificial intelligence. Experiment quickly and often and use feedback to improve. Apple also did not give up after the failure of Lisa and Newton. Moreover, “punishment” should be applied only if there are too few errors or the same error is repeated several times. This is just not enough for many companies that devote all their energy and resources to perfecting any one idea that already has time to become obsolete by the time it is planned to enter the market. It would seem that this is a little contrary to Rule 2, but only a little. And in practice, it turns out that it is best to be "about right" and "a little earlier than necessary" than to be "100% sure" at a time when it is too late. Moreover, the traditional “create, fix, release” production model is gradually being superseded by the more progressive “create, release, fix” model (that is, attract consumers who will become participants in the creation of the “release” version!). The latter is especially important for technologies and products that are critical by the time they enter the market and resonates with ideas such as extreme programming.
The sequel, including the wonderful Rule 6, follows!
New Rules for Innovators
Rule 1. One head is good - and a collective mind is better.
The image of a lone genius, secluded in a gloomy garage or basement, is traditionally associated with innovation and inventions. However, according to Andrew Hargadon, professor of technology management at the University of California, in most cases, this far-fetched image has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, if the business ends with innovation, then as a rule, whole groups are participants in the process. Professor Hargadon’s book, “How Breakthroughs Are Made,” suggests that innovation is largely driven by the collaboration of entire networks. Formal or semi-formal associations of people or entire projects with the participation of consumers, suppliers and even competitors, these social networks are maximally focused on building relationships and interacting around a common task. Another feature which the professor notes in his book, is that ideas are rarely truly new. Often these are just fresh combinations of previously expressed suggestions. Therefore, the diversity of participants in the innovation process, their ideas and experience, is the key to successful innovation. Hence the conclusion that the best way to ruin a good idea is to consider it on a committee that must make a decision in a consistent manner. It’s better to find someone who pushes all participants with their heads and adds fuel to the fire of a heated discussion. that the best way to ruin a good idea is to consider it on a committee that must make a decision in a consistent manner. It’s better to find someone who pushes all participants with their heads and adds fuel to the fire of a heated discussion. that the best way to ruin a good idea is to consider it on a committee that must make a decision in a consistent manner. It’s better to find someone who pushes all participants with their heads and adds fuel to the fire of a heated discussion.
Rule 2. It is an honor to be the first, but the patient is more successful.
The theory of the advantage provided by the primacy of market entry is debunked in Nicholas Carr's book, The Shine and Poverty of IT. According to him, with the emergence of truly revolutionary technology, great market opportunities open up only for the "second tier" of those who will eliminate the consequences of the revolutionary devastation that has arisen. Pioneers, however, can suffer the fate of the witches who are lit at the stake or driven out. Carr explains his phenomenon by saying that innovators run too fast ahead of consumers who are inherently terribly inert and lazy when it comes to change. For this reason, many of the great ideas of the first wave of dotcoms simply did not live to the point where they could truly benefit consumers. Successful innovators like Toyota or Wall-Mart don't break existing technology barriers, but use them. A good example from the Internet industry is the NetFlix movie sale service. It would seem that it hindered making a bet on downloading films on the network. But no, the films are recorded on discs, which are delivered to customers by the usual and reliable US postal service.
Rule 3. The more you try, the more luck.
The best way to get a good idea is to have many ideas, Linus Pauling said. Innovation is like learning artificial intelligence. Experiment quickly and often and use feedback to improve. Apple also did not give up after the failure of Lisa and Newton. Moreover, “punishment” should be applied only if there are too few errors or the same error is repeated several times. This is just not enough for many companies that devote all their energy and resources to perfecting any one idea that already has time to become obsolete by the time it is planned to enter the market. It would seem that this is a little contrary to Rule 2, but only a little. And in practice, it turns out that it is best to be "about right" and "a little earlier than necessary" than to be "100% sure" at a time when it is too late. Moreover, the traditional “create, fix, release” production model is gradually being superseded by the more progressive “create, release, fix” model (that is, attract consumers who will become participants in the creation of the “release” version!). The latter is especially important for technologies and products that are critical by the time they enter the market and resonates with ideas such as extreme programming.
The sequel, including the wonderful Rule 6, follows!