BECG theblog

Illusions and the Elusive: The Innovation Conundrum

I just finished reading Eric Schmidt's article on innovation in the Washington Post. Directionally, the article is fine, but there are a couple of things I feel compelled to point out:

• While everyone wants innovation, this is a word that connotes so many different things to so many different people that it has become virtually meaningless. For instance most (like Commerce Secretary Locke) focus on 'breakthrough' innovations. However, having done a ton of research about innovation and innovators, I know that most innovations begin with tweakage: tinkering with something you already know about, to make it better suit your own personal needs. If you only look for big ideas, you're going to miss the boat — or, oops -- the spaceship.


• Most innovation does not take place in labs--it takes place in the most unglamorous of places (no, I don't necessarily mean the bathroom!).


• Innovative people usually don't quite 'fit in.''Typically, organizations 'kill off' this type of person, sending them to corporate Siberia and/or simply extruding them.  Then, months later, a new "innovation pod," is formed by executive fiat--lavishly funded and populated by all of the usual suspects -- who do fit in. Eventually, after issuing a series of highly bounded, 'safe' recommendations, the pod is disbanded or fades into obscurity.


• The stereotype of the innovator as a 'lone wolf' is inaccurate. This is where connectivity and the Internet fit in. Those who don't quite fit in are a minority, and they are scattered hither and yon. Yet, communication between multiple parties with shared interests lies at the heart of innovation. Internet-based connectivity makes it possible for 'weirdos,' AKA innovative types, to find one another and engage in the kind of dialog and collaborative effort that does make for breakthroughs.


• Not all innovation occurs in the high-tech sector: au contraire. For instance, I recently went to my local hardware store, where I saw and bought -- for 59¢ -- a strangely shaped, highly innovative pan scraper made of molded plastic. It's better than any pot scraper I have ever experienced. *Myopia alert!* I am confident Paul Budde, a chief architect of Australia's ambitious broadband plan and proponent of silo-free thought, would back me up on this. Trans-sector thinking knows no size.


• I REALLY wish the people who hold the power to facilitate innovation writ large (as referenced in the article) knew some of these things. It would definitely make for greater effectiveness in "erasing our innovation deficit."

#feb17 One year Anniversary

The light of hope lives in this world. 

عالي وعالي وعالي الصوت.الي حـ يهتف مش حيموت  

 alee wa 3alee wa 3alee assawt.illee 7ayahtif mish haymoot: 

Raise, raise, raise, your voice. Those who cheer will never die.

 

Debt in America: fact vs fiction

Watching the State of the Union address Tuesday night, I sometimes felt the urge to shout at the TV set. Although the President seems to want to do right by people, his repeated mentions of "responsible homeowners" told me that he does not understand borrowers' motivations, nor does he 'get' what underlies most late- or non-payment of debt. The reality is: If people do not make their mortgage payments, it is rarely because they are irresponsible.'

Obama is not alone in his lack of understanding. Both Robert Manning (2000) and David Graeber (2010) have noted that, in our society, to be in debt is to be judged morally wanting - even if that judgment has no basis in reality. Take a look at the facts - the main causes of consumer bankruptcy are:

• Shocks to income in the form of job loss, death of a wage earner, or divorce, and 
• Shocks to expenses in the form of medical crises. 

Either one of these catastrophes would be bad enough to bring a famly down, but they are prone to co-occur since in the US, loss of employment typically translates into loss of health insurance. That these 'drive' non-payment, particularly for homeowners, was documented in As We Forgive Our Debtors (Sullivan, Warren & Westbrook, 2000) and has been corroborated by numerous rigorously-conducted studies by economists (see citations in the embedded links). 

Even a decade ago, the harbingers of today's debt crisis were lurking in plain view. On a systemic level, things are now much worse. Yet, there are many answers to be found. They lie neglected because so many people can't get beyond their counter-factual moral judgments. Ironically, it is the moral judgment that causes the harm, and it is they who would punish the suffering that carry the disease.