New rules for innovators
According to FastCompany.com, November 2007
New rules for innovators
Rule 1. One head is good - and collective intelligence is better.
The image of a lonely genius who retired in a gloomy garage or semi-basement is traditionally associated with innovation and inventions. However, according to Andrew Hargadon, a professor of technology management at the University of California, in most cases this contrived image has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, if business ends with innovations, then whole groups are usually participants in the process. The book by Professor Hargadon entitled “How breakthroughs are made” says that innovation is largely due to the joint work 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 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 made 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 kill a good idea is to consider it on the committee, which should make a decision in concert. It is better to find someone who will push all the participants with their heads and pour oil on the flames of the heated discussion.
Rule 2. It is honorable to be the first, but the patient achieves greater success.
The theory of the advantage provided by the primacy of entering the market is debunked in Nicholas Carr’s book The Glitter and Poverty of IT. According to him, in the event of the emergence of a truly revolutionary technology, great market opportunities open up only for the “second echelon” of those who will eliminate the consequences of the revolutionary disruptions that have occurred. Pioneers of the same can comprehend the fate of witches who are lit on the stake or driven out. Carr explains his phenomenon by the fact that innovators run too fast ahead of consumers, who by their nature are terribly inert and lazy when it comes to change. For this reason, many of the great ideas of the first wave of the dot-com just did not live up to the time when they could truly benefit consumers. Successful innovators, such as Toyota or Wall-Mart, do not break existing technological barriers, but use them. A good example from the Internet industry is the NetFlix film sales service. It would seem that it hurt to bet on downloading movies online. But no, the films are recorded on discs, which are delivered to buyers 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 a lot of 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 what many companies lack, which devote all their efforts and means to bring to perfection any single idea that already has time to become obsolete by the time of the planned launch to the market. It would seem that this is a bit 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 the moment when it is too late. Moreover, the traditional “create, fix, release” production model is gradually being supplanted by a more progressive “create, release, correct” model (that is, attract consumers who will become participants in the release version!). The latter is especially important for technologies and products that are critical at the time of market entry and echoes ideas like extreme programming.
The sequel, including the remarkable Rule 6, follows!
New rules for innovators
Rule 1. One head is good - and collective intelligence is better.
The image of a lonely genius who retired in a gloomy garage or semi-basement is traditionally associated with innovation and inventions. However, according to Andrew Hargadon, a professor of technology management at the University of California, in most cases this contrived image has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, if business ends with innovations, then whole groups are usually participants in the process. The book by Professor Hargadon entitled “How breakthroughs are made” says that innovation is largely due to the joint work 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 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 made 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 kill a good idea is to consider it on the committee, which should make a decision in concert. It is better to find someone who will push all the participants with their heads and pour oil on the flames of the heated discussion.
Rule 2. It is honorable to be the first, but the patient achieves greater success.
The theory of the advantage provided by the primacy of entering the market is debunked in Nicholas Carr’s book The Glitter and Poverty of IT. According to him, in the event of the emergence of a truly revolutionary technology, great market opportunities open up only for the “second echelon” of those who will eliminate the consequences of the revolutionary disruptions that have occurred. Pioneers of the same can comprehend the fate of witches who are lit on the stake or driven out. Carr explains his phenomenon by the fact that innovators run too fast ahead of consumers, who by their nature are terribly inert and lazy when it comes to change. For this reason, many of the great ideas of the first wave of the dot-com just did not live up to the time when they could truly benefit consumers. Successful innovators, such as Toyota or Wall-Mart, do not break existing technological barriers, but use them. A good example from the Internet industry is the NetFlix film sales service. It would seem that it hurt to bet on downloading movies online. But no, the films are recorded on discs, which are delivered to buyers 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 a lot of 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 what many companies lack, which devote all their efforts and means to bring to perfection any single idea that already has time to become obsolete by the time of the planned launch to the market. It would seem that this is a bit 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 the moment when it is too late. Moreover, the traditional “create, fix, release” production model is gradually being supplanted by a more progressive “create, release, correct” model (that is, attract consumers who will become participants in the release version!). The latter is especially important for technologies and products that are critical at the time of market entry and echoes ideas like extreme programming.
The sequel, including the remarkable Rule 6, follows!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/16544/
All Articles