Dear Rosan, Ken and others

The synonymous use of the words "invention" and "innovation" is confusing this discussion.

Within the field of innovation research it is, following Schumpter's work in the early 1900, customary to differ between invention, innovation and diffusion. A good example is the computer mouse. It was invented by Douglas Engelbart at Stanford, turned into an innovation, that is successful on the market, by Apple and diffused, that is turned into a commodity, by numerous companies like Microsoft and Logitech. As an example, Apple's success build mostly on innovations of others' inventions. (I am not aware of any single major invention by Apple, although they may exist.) But Apple has been the worlds most successful innovator the last decades.

Given the standard model of invention, innovation and diffusion it is reasonable to conclude that Xerox PARC was very inventive, but in many cases failed at innovation.

The same goes for services, although their interconnectedness and rapid change/development sometimes makes distinction more difficult. For instance, Google is sometimes criticized in the business press for lacking innovation; it's revenues and profits are still dominated by search related advertising, which was its original innovation. (You may note that Youtube was a existing company that was bought.) ((And since the Google profit is so impressive the criticism is mild, at least so far.)) Google is however certainly inventive, but has recently begun closing down numerous projects because of their lack of innovation.

The distinction is important because inventive people, for instance designers, sometimes assign an inflated value to the invention and lack understanding of the difficulties in getting things a major market. This leads to a too strong focus on the product and risks missing the products relationship to other things like marketing, brands, customers, media etc etc.

The reason for the distinction in the field between invention and innovation is, in part, the huge amount of inventions that occur yearly, compared to the more humble number of innovations.

I would like to recommend designers and design research the Oxford handbook of innovation, as it gives an exemplary overview of the field, from the origin to the most recent topics, like service innovation and innovation in the public sector. It contains contribution from a large number of experts. (Perhaps even someone the list?)


Best regards,
Lars

Fagerberg, J., D. C. Mowery, et al. (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.



.........................................................................
LARS ALBINSSON
+46 (0) 70 592 70 45
[log in to unmask]

AFFILIATIONS:
MAESTRO MANAGEMENT AB
CALISTOGA SPRINGS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
.........................................................................





12 mar 2012 kl. 04:51 skrev Ken Friedman:

Dear Rosan and Don,

Interesting thoughts. I agree with Don that designers aspire to
disruptive innovation – and I agree that design research generally
leads to incremental innovation. Both are valuable.

Incremental innovation is more successful for a reason: incremental
innovation seeks improvements to working products and services. This
reduces waste, improves productivity, lengthens the life cycle of
products, and spreads sunk costs over a longer product life to enhance
profitability.

Incremental innovation is a parallel to Thomas Kuhn’s description of
normal science. During the 19th century, for example, physics and
chemistry made immense and important gains from incremental innovation
that built on the work of such innovators as Carnot, Faraday, Maxwell
and Boltzmann. When Planck, the Curies, and Einstein addressed problems
that were unforeseen in the 19th century, they ushered in a radical
innovation that led to the new physics.

In design and engineering, however, as in evolution, radical
innovations represent dramatic potential gains and huge potential
losses.

First, radical innovations often represent a massive investment that is
a complete write-off when they fail. Or else they represent a massive
investment in which the returns on investment do not go to the original
creator-investors, but to later entrepreneurial adapters. I recall a
talk Don gave in Seoul in which he showed us several of his pioneering
inventions and radical innovations. Alas, most of Don’s radical
innovations were twenty years before their time – which is once reason
why Don is a Don Norman and not quite a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

Second, radical innovations change the ecology around them, and once a
new ecology grows around the new innovations, there is often no way back
to prior potential choices.

Third – and this is why designers want to be radical innovators –
is that successful radical innovators have fun and occasionally achieve
a measure of glory.

By the way, please don’t blame Paul Hekkert for the message that
designers seek to innovate by shaping new markets. That’s the fun
factor at work. As Don has also noted, most designers want to do cool
things. It’s boring old guys like me who wonder why one might wish to
innovate if something works well. I had my first mobile phone for a
decade, one of those charming old Ericsson bricks. The only reason I
moved to a new phone was that my model was so obsolete that they stopped
making the original battery pack – when my last battery wore out, I
could no longer recharge the phone. I’m not quite Amish, but “use it
up, wear it out, make do, or do without” would be a good motto for my
sampler. But there is another side to me – and that is the side that
wants things to work better, serving more needs with less waste at lower
cost. And that’s what Paul is also talking about. Paul and his
colleagues at TUDelft are working with us at Swinburne, and with
colleagues at Cambridge and at University of Vienna to understand why
people make preferential choices among designed artifacts or services
based on universal models of aesthetics that we don’t yet understand
fully. This also involves the need for basic research and raises the
potential for radical innovation.

Even successful radical innovations represent immense risk and loss.
The history of railroads was marked by boom and bust, by bankrupt and
failed companies. This was also true of the early automobile industry.
There were nearly 300 automobile companies in Detroit in 1900. A few
years later, there were only a dozen or so. Even the once-dominant Ford
Motor Company was Henry Ford’s third attempt to making a successful
automobile manufacturing firm. Let’s not even talk about Silicon
Valley – one reason the place is a luxuriant hothouse of startups and
successful ventures is that Silicon Valley also represents an industrial
version of the Cambrian explosion, with life forms blossoming and
withering in micro-seconds on the evolutionary time scale.

Toyota Way, lean process, and Deming’s Fourteen Principles represent
incremental innovation. Henry Ford and Steve Jobs represented radical
innovation, though you can argue that Ford moved from radical innovation
to rent seeking through market lock-in, while much of Jobs’s success
involved incremental innovation and improvement to originally radical
products.

There are probably ways to innovate that represent a mix – but these
also involve finding ways to embed new ideas, products, and services in
the mind and behavior of users. Goran Roos (2012) puts it nicely:

“The most common objective of design in the innovation process is to
change the behavior of individuals who use a designed artifact in such a
way that the user perceives that his new behavior improves his life. As
a consequence, when the user adopts the new behavior, the provider of
the designed artifact also becomes better off, as do other members of
the ecosystem surrounding the product or service. … The Apple iPhone is
a good example of this is. Users of this artifact change their behavior
due to the user interface and the capabilities of the iPhone. One aspect
of this new behavior includes buying and using applications as well as
increasing data use. As a consequence, the user feels better off. So do
telecom operators, application providers, and Apple itself as a producer
and business model innovator.”

Designers use three routes to shape behavioral change: they enabling
desirable behavior by making the behavior easier for the user than
alternate behaviors; they motivate users to modify or change behavior
through education, incentives, attitude change, or other mechanisms;
they sometimes push users to desirable behavior by making alternate
behaviors impossible, difficult, or prohibitively expensive in economic
or social terms. Is this good or bad? Both. If by innovation we mean
finding ways to induce people to buy hula hoops or change their phones
every season, I say it is bad. If by innovation, we mean finding better
ways to persuade people to stop smoking or use computers more
effectively, I’d say it is good.

We often do not think deeply enough about how or why we innovate. In
this sense, Rosan has it quite right when she writes, “what troubles
me is that this aspiration and the drive toward new-market disruptions
are seen as more valuable and appealing.”

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design