Just the other day I stumbled upon John Kao’s blog, on c|net, which strongly suggests why all presidential candidates should be focusing on INNOVATION in the U.S..

“Different countries have different models, ranging from heavy government direction like Finland, to the U.S. style “let ‘er rip” system that relies on bottoms-up innovation. For the U.S. to better compete, Kao said, it needs a strategy that makes innovation more of a priority. ”

I have to agree with John that our country needs a higher priority for innovation, although I don’t believe sole responsibility lies with our government. Government can incent but cannot fix innovation gaps.

John also stated “I want the government to oversee the best platform possible, like the national highway system, but I want total freedom for entrepreneurs,”

Quick question for John… Are you kidding? Okay no that’s not the question… What makes anyone think government has any idea what a real innovation platform would look like let alone how to manage it? Maybe government could provide incentives for innovative programs that produce a competitive advantage for our nation, but build and manage innovation? No likely John, not likely.

Here’s a quick example… The United States Government didn’t ask Ben Rich and Lockheed Martin to create stealth technology. Lockheed’s Skunk Works created the revolutionary technology as a way to outwit Russia’s dominant missile technology. Lockheed and the Skunk Works were provided an enormous government contract only after demonstrating their problem solving innovation. Lockheed’s Skunk Works is heralded as an innovative force in their industry even forcing Boeing to create the Phantom Works. Competition breeds innovation…

End result, government should not provide a structure for innovation, although may provide creative incentives pushing more companies to create their very own progressive R&D programs, like the Skunk Works, focused on answering economic, workforce, and educational threats through innovation.

In closing from John, “Prioritizing innovation for societal goals now is more like preventive medicine.“

Social Bookmarks

Comments(3)

Big props to companies like Siemens who promote high school level math and science competition and provide winners with up to $100k for their innovative ideas.

This type of High School program is vital to our nation’s workforce, moreover our economy. For several years the U.S. has been slipping in the areas of Math and Science, only through programs such as these will companies be able to attract, develop and retain MORE young talent in our nation.

Social Bookmarks

Comments(4)

1) In your opinion, what is innovation?
Well first I checked with Noah Webster on the definition of “innovation” and was pretty disappointed.

Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌi-nə-ˈvā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

I believe Webster’s attempt on defining INNOVATION is incomplete without mentioning impact, disruption, and evolution. Without those three little words I personally don’t believe you can achieve true innovation.

2) How has innovation changed in the 21st Century?
I believe innovation has changed the 21st century much like it’s changed every other century, only at a much faster pace. This is due to the dynamic and fluid properties of the web, which allows information to flow instantaneously from one to hundreds of thousands or millions, where prior methods of communication and sharing of information was slow and reached few.

3) Why is innovation becoming increasingly important to organizations?
Innovation has always played an important role in the business world, if you can create innovative products and/or solutions faster than the next company, and gain adoption, you win. Now mix in the information from my last answer and innovative competition accelerates at an increasingly rapid pace.

4) When is innovation used as intervention?
I believe companies are beginning to approach innovation as a proactive, full-time, job instead of reacting to innovative competition in the marketplace, which replaces a more “intervention-like” model. Today’s “crystal ball” economy dictates the creation of new markets, reduction in costs, and continued quality improvement ahead of competitors, rather than a mere response to them.

5) What about the problem of hyping things as innovations that are not really that innovative – and dismissing true innovations because they are not understood?
It’s called advertising and it will always be a factor. Meaning we will continue to see, hear, filter, and buy into the “hype” on many occasions but only through practical education, understanding, and adoption will REAL innovation gain traction over the “hyped” version.

6) What are some tips, techniques, and issues for using innovation in real world?
First define what you believe to be true INNOVATION. I believe the product and/or service is only innovative IF there is a practical application. For example: Silver’s semi-sticky adhesive alone was NOT innovation, only after a practical application and adoption was found did it turn into a billion dollar Post-it Note dynasty. My tip and/or technique is to collaborate and explore practical, yet innovative, applications focused on impacting, disrupting and evolving the market through your new product and/or service.

A BIG thanks goes to Caroline Huebner, a graduate student in the Educational Technology program at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, for reading my blog and, more importantly, posing these questions.

Related posts:
- INNOVATE or DIE!
- Knock 3 times, for INNOVATION

Social Bookmarks

Comments(2)

Knock 3 Times, on INNOVATION if you want it..

Another story from our friend Geoff Nicholson at 3M details new product idea rejections! Not only does 3M want their employees to use their imagination to create and innovate on company time, they also embody the “never say quit” attitude. Geoff explains just because you were turned down doesn’t mean you’ve lost. Continue to rethink, evolve and execute your idea creating better opportunity for you and your organization.

Your idea might be shot down, but remember this… The Post-it Note process started in 1968 and launched as a product in 1980, which means it took over a decade to evolve a semi-sticky adhesive into a massive BILLION DOLLAR revenue generator for 3M. Fry and Silver never gave up AND actually struck out more than 3 times on this idea.

BE THE FROG!

Social Bookmarks

Comments(2)

“Research is the transformation of money into knowledge“ and “Innovation is the transformation of knowledge into money”

Geoff Nicholson, from the 3M Company, launches his presentation on ‘Innovation: A Survival Issue‘ with those connected quotes. Geoff then informs the packed room, building immediate credibility, that he was one of three men who was responsible for inventing and championing the Post-It Note, among other products, within 3M. OH DAMN, my first thought was that this man is partly responsible for billions in revenue to 3M from a little sticky note pad idea? Once again for good measure, OH DAMN!

Geoff then follows with the next quote… “One of life’s greatest pleasures is doing what people say cannot be done” - Walter Bagehot

I was happily sensing this would NOT be one of “the usual” conference presentations, you know the one where you eject halfway through desperately searching for caffeine sources. So I pull out my trusty laptop and start taking notes on INNOVATION, provided by Geoff, and looking for t-shirts with Bagehot’s quote.

How has 3M stayed so INNOVATIVE? One big aspect of INNOVATION is providing your employees with a certain level of autonomy. This, no doubt, is sure to send control-freak managers over the edge although in the same breath open the gates of collaboration, knowledge, innovation, new products and yes… New lines of revenue, aka Money.

3M has offered 15% time, sound familiar, to employees for decades. This, on the clock, time provides employees with an opportunity to pursue their very own projects which has produced failures, successes and/or accidents that have turned out to create BILLIONS of revenue for the company, again all created on company time. Moreover this program, process, life style, has made 3M a worldwide INNOVATION leader for decades, with 40,000+ products.

Enter Google who, umm, errrr “adopted”, their 20% time and innovation process from 3M? Seriously? ehh kinda… This very method has aided in transforming Google into a world INNOVATION leader, creating new products and new user, soon to be revenue, streams to their products.

After the presentation I introduced myself to Geoff, and after thanking him for imparting his wisdom, I asked why he thought more companies hadn’t embraced a 15-20% rule to spark INNOVATION in their own organizations? Especially since 3M and Google are such great case studies. Geoff quickly replied “The problem Chad is LEDAERSHIP, they’re afraid of breaking out of traditional business practices and even though 3M has led global innovation for years we’ve had our hiccups too. INNOVATION is not for the faint of heart and takes risk which are outside of the traditional comforts.” Only after further research did I understand what hiccups Geoff was eluding too..

In closing, I believe it was Einstein who said “Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” On the flip side, Innovation is created by and also produces DISRUPTION. So I guess the real question is are you a disruptor or just run of the mill insane?

Social Bookmarks

Comments(0)