There is always much talk about the eureka moment - that magical moment when an idea crystalizes into something coherent - something that can be articulated, shared and built upon. We often think of the eureka moment as the start (time = 0) point in in the innovation process, not dissimilar to the big bang start of the universe. But alas, the eureka moment is far from the beginning.
Long before things converge into a eureka moment, there must exist the raw ingredients of an idea – a primordial mix of pains, problems, brilliance, dreams, passion, creativity and imagination. Somewhere and somehow within our subconscious, these raw ingredients come together over time, and eventually focalize into a conscious spark of brilliance that we call an idea. This pre-eureka phase - the so-called fuzzy front-end of innovation - is the source of all ideas and obviously vitally important to the innovation discussion. But it is also a topic that most of us are ill-equipped for. As we step back in process time, we transition from the post-eureka domain of engineers and entrepreneurs to the unexplored pre-eureka jungles of neuroscience. While neuroscience is making tremendous strides (especially with the latest functional MRIs (fMRI) research), for us laypeople the pre-eureka phase remains mostly a mystery – a troubling concept given that it is the source of the seeds of our businesses.
It is hard to accept that so much of the value we create is the result of a process beyond our control somewhere within the dark recesses of our minds. But that is indeed what neuroscience is teaching us. And while there is much talk about the environmental factors that enable creativity and innovation, the truth is that hard science usually doesn’t support these theories. I still think they are worthy conversations to have, but we must remain humble about how much we really know and understand … and we really don’t know that much. We can be troubled by this reality or we can see it as a brave new frontier.
Saturday, 16 February 2013
Friday, 15 February 2013
Innovation and the Ancients
I’ve always been fascinated with the history of the ancient Greeks and Romans. From a western perspective, they were the original and ultimate social innovators. They created the very constructs of how we think and how we govern ourselves. Today it is somewhat difficult to separate the two because their architecture, religion, art and literature all seem similar to the modern eye, but a little digging reveals the Greeks and Romans were actually very different. The Greeks came first and are most famous for their philosophies that remain the cornerstone of Western society. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others of that era were great thinkers who valued ideas above all. The Romans were quite different in this respect. The Romans were pragmatists and their interest was in the application of great ideas. They followed the Greeks, adopted their ideas, tweaked them and then used them to change the world. The Greeks (i.e., Plato) wrote about a great republic, whereas the Romans took those ideas and actually built one.
This amazing relationship between Greek-like thinkers and Roman-like implementers forms the basis of modern innovation thinking. Applying modern language, we would say that the Greeks invented the social innovations, and the Romans commercialized them. Today, scientists and academics play the role of modern Greeks in that they generate new ideas, concepts and IP, and engineers and entrepreneurs play the role of Romans as they take these ideas and build new products and businesses.
There are important lessons to be learned from the relationship between these two great societies. Perhaps the most striking is what it tells us about the time lag between the invention and realization phases of ideas. Today we assign a lot of importance to the idea of being first, even giving it the title first mover advantage. Yet when we look at the Greek-Roman relationship, we see that it was not the first-mover Greeks that realized the value of their own great ideas. Our current preoccupation on being first distracts us from the advantage of the second-mover in the Greek-Roman relationship. Being second can be a lot cheaper and less risky than being first, as you can learn from the expensive failures of the first mover. The Romans did not just adopt the ideas of the Greeks. They also learned from the failures of Greek society. And it was this combination of great ideas and observed lessons that the Romans were able to apply so remarkably in building their empire.
None of this is to say that the Greeks were not important. In fact, without the Greeks the Romans would not have had the concepts to build upon. But it is the combination of inventor plus implementer that ultimately creates the value. So often I hear people debating the relative value of our modern Greeks and Romans, but the debate misses the point that both are essential players in the innovation play. The inventors feed the implementers new ideas, and the implementers fund the inventors with the proceeds from ideas previously realized. It is an amazing cycle that started in ancient times and continues today.
This amazing relationship between Greek-like thinkers and Roman-like implementers forms the basis of modern innovation thinking. Applying modern language, we would say that the Greeks invented the social innovations, and the Romans commercialized them. Today, scientists and academics play the role of modern Greeks in that they generate new ideas, concepts and IP, and engineers and entrepreneurs play the role of Romans as they take these ideas and build new products and businesses.
There are important lessons to be learned from the relationship between these two great societies. Perhaps the most striking is what it tells us about the time lag between the invention and realization phases of ideas. Today we assign a lot of importance to the idea of being first, even giving it the title first mover advantage. Yet when we look at the Greek-Roman relationship, we see that it was not the first-mover Greeks that realized the value of their own great ideas. Our current preoccupation on being first distracts us from the advantage of the second-mover in the Greek-Roman relationship. Being second can be a lot cheaper and less risky than being first, as you can learn from the expensive failures of the first mover. The Romans did not just adopt the ideas of the Greeks. They also learned from the failures of Greek society. And it was this combination of great ideas and observed lessons that the Romans were able to apply so remarkably in building their empire.
None of this is to say that the Greeks were not important. In fact, without the Greeks the Romans would not have had the concepts to build upon. But it is the combination of inventor plus implementer that ultimately creates the value. So often I hear people debating the relative value of our modern Greeks and Romans, but the debate misses the point that both are essential players in the innovation play. The inventors feed the implementers new ideas, and the implementers fund the inventors with the proceeds from ideas previously realized. It is an amazing cycle that started in ancient times and continues today.
Thursday, 14 February 2013
The Elusive Happy Place
I’ve had the honour of working with some truly talented and creative people in my career. That honour has allowed me to observe that extreme talent often comes with extreme passion. Where there is passion, there is very often conflict, drama and frustration. Despite my ‘no drama’ policy, I seem to be endlessly drawn into situations where passions have boiled over and I’ve had to intervene. Historically, my goal has been to find a common ground where all the parties are satisfied with the result. I’ve put tremendous energy into getting everybody to a ‘happy place’, but alas I’ve rarely succeeded. And even when I have, dissatisfaction seems to rear its ugly head again in no time at all. For the longest time, I considered my inability to develop a harmonious work environment to be one of my great failures.
Like most people I drank the coolaid espoused by management gurus who talk eloquently about great work environments where collaboration, teamwork and consensus reign supreme. Oh, wouldn’t it be nice? It all sounds so wonderful. I can close my eyes and almost feel what it would be like. But when I open my eyes, the tranquility disappears and tension, debate and endless dissatisfaction flood my reality. I wonder if those gurus ever sat in a meeting where real designers – real engineers– real leaders debated and discussed new products, new processes or new business concepts. If they had, I suspect the experience would have crushed their ‘happy place’ dreams too.
I have shared in past blog postings that I believe that passion is the secret ingredient of success. I stand by that position, but I have learned that passion has a price. Passion results from having a strong sense that things could and should be “better” in some way, whether on a technical, business or social front. In other words, passion is a byproduct of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Take away the dissatisfaction, and there is nothing feeding the passion for a better tomorrow.
Obviously not all debate is positive, but ‘healthy’ dissatisfaction is a necessary condition for creativity and innovation. A harmonious and stress-free work environment may sound nice but it is really code for complacency. I see now that my effort to make a ‘happy place’ for everyone was a fool’s folly. The tortured artist that produces great wonders can never really be satisfied, and neither can a truly innovative organization.
Ty Shattuck
The Idea Whisperer
@tyshattuck
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)