Slashdot Mirror
Is Innovation the Most Abused Word In Business?
dcblogs writes "Most of what is called innovation today is mere distraction, according to a paper by economist Robert Gordon, written for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Real innovations involve things like the combustion engine or air conditioning, not the smartphone. The paper includes thought experiments to help you gain more respect for genuine innovations such as indoor plumbing. The Financial Times has posted the complete 25-page paper.(pdf)"
An innovation can be as small as a neat new way of handling some user interaction which nobody has done before or a heuristic which solves a hard problem but at the same time people from buisness or management backgrounds or courses do set an insanely low bar for what they consider "innovation".
If you were to believe buisness grads then "innovation" includes their "ideas" along the lines of "a website like *only better*" or "that thing which everyone is already doing but which I think is my neat new idea"
I'm sure that people understand that innovation isn't a black and white thing, and that some things are more innovative than others. Hence "the best thing since sliced bread" - i.e., something can be innovative but not as innovative as something else.
In the long term, something is innovative if we cannot live our daily lives without it. For example - indoor plumbing, light bulbs. In terms of always available communication the mobile phone was completely innovative. And the smartphone merely enhanced that and merged in myriad other devices into the single unit. A total innovation in itself, and making that conglomeration of functionalities usable in itself is clearly an innovation.
But maybe not as innovative as pre-sliced bread.
(note, I don't actually think that pre-sliced bread is that innovative, but maybe the means by which it can be pre-sliced and then not go solid or stale quickly is.)
I agree - there's a difference between innovation and incremental improvements.
The amount of new business/marketing speak that comes out of the U.S.A. is very innovative.
Reach out to instead of contact is the thing that bugs me right now.
George Carlin had a whole wonderful bit about this - "You will not hear me say: bottom line, game plan, role model, scenario, or hopefully."
http://www.iceboxman.com/carlin/pael.php
you're also forgetting that MBA's and Financial People use "Innovation" all the time to take funds from people and transform them into vapor.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"Innovation" is a favorite term of patent trolls and other technovultures to describe nebulous ideas as patentable products that are nothing more than vaporware.
Of course, the list of engineering carrion-feeders is long and distinguished. You can be a Fortune 100 company and still be a patent troll from the standpoint of registering ethereal brain-farts as IP.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Rounded corners FTW!
No sig today...
Whether or not the word "innovation" has become the most abused word in the business context, that remains to be seen
On the other hand, "innovation" itself has been abused by the patent trolls
Innovators and inventors nowadays often find themselves in between a rock and a very hard place
On one hand, they can get sued by patent trolls if they put their innovation to good use
On the other hand, many of the innovators' livelihood depends on their ability to invent, to innovate, to create new things
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Rounded corners?
That's a pretty major innovation if you're talking about aviation...
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
'Passion' is the most abused word. Don't tell people you are passionate - show them!!! I stare wordlessly at people who misuse the word passion for an inappropriate amount of time. Very quickly they realise what they have done wrong. Actually it works for all of the abused words. Innovation, solutions, synergy etc. Try it, it's fun.
I find it funny, I got an MBA degree, there was a strong effort in making sure we don't use buzz words, but to actually understand what they mean, then not to use them.
There are a lot of Managers and Upper Managers without MBA's those are the ones who tend to be the biggest offenders. They will hear MBA's use the terms in correct context then reuse them out of context.
For Example Synergy Is an aspect when people working in a team or a group produce more then the sum of each person. The Non-MBA takes this as meaning working well in a team, or just having a lot of energy and excitement about the work they do. Synergy is often not achieved even with groups and teams that work well with a lot of energy. Because as you put more people on a team the natural aspect is for each member is to work a little less hard then if they would do it themselves. MBA's may talk about Synergy as a goal, the other guys who don't know what it means and are too timid to ask, will interpret it incorrectly and reuse it in the wrong way. So in the modern MBA class we are told to avoid using these new terms that we learn because the non-MBA abuse them and degrade their meeting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Vehicles that can fly" is a pretty huge incremental step from "Vehicles that can't fly". It's a big leap like that which we tend to call "innovation". Little steps aren't innovation- even though they're often even more useful. The Wright Brother innovated when they managed to put together the first working aeroplane- but it wasn't all that useful. When someone took their plane and made minor incremental improvements to speed, durability, capacity, etc. they weren't innovating, but they did create something truly valuable. When Boeing made the Jumbo Jet it wasn't an "innovation" (it's just a bigger version of what they already built)- but it was damned clever and useful.
This was modded funny, but it's actually a quite clever comment.
If GrpA had included some context it would be informative
Thing is, in aviation, the first passenger jet, the DH Comet started exploding in flight and no one knew why. Turns out that square corners in windows and doors is a bad idea when it comes to pressured vessels made from aluminium.
The failure modes of aluminium weren't perfectly understood at the time, and after huge amounts of testing (actually quite impressive amounts of testing using quite clever methods) they found that repeated pressurisation/depressurisation cycles led to the formation of microcracks at the corner's of windows and doors. This wasn't thought to be a big issue, because the best known metals (steel, iron) had quite gradual and benign failure modes.
Well, it turned out that aluminium fails quite spectacularly when it has any kind of stress damage.
The whole fuselage of the aircraft would basically rip apart in an explosive manner, and this was in a static testing tank so the 800km/h speed wasn't even factored in.
The solution?
Rounded rectangles for windows (or oval shaped windows)
The cockpit windows have sharp corners, but also have special reinforcement to decrease/distribute the stress.
So, rounded rectangles can actually be a major innovation :D
For Example Synergy Is an aspect when people working in a team or a group produce more then the sum of each person.
Sorry to disappoint you, but a group cannot produce more than the sum of each person.
This is called Ringelmann effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringelmann_effect
it has been measured in 1914, by measuring the amount of effort of groups of different sizes.
When you put 8 persons together, you get the amount of effort only 4 can produce.
People unconsciously reduce their effort when they work in a team.
What you can do is try to increase intrinsic motivation, so that not too much energy is lost in the group.
Also, choose the best members for your team.
I'm going to make the case for putting "incentivize" near or at the top, because it's quite common, and used to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
For instance, when a politician talks about incentivizing investment, what he really means is that he wants to lower the capital gains tax. When a marketing executive says he wants to incentivize customer engagement, he means something along the lines of increasing sales with a "win a free iPod" contest or something similar. When somebody talks about incentivizing employees, they're talking about making coworkers compete each other for a limited number of perks (or remaining head count after a layoff) in the hopes that all employees work harder. And when a loan shark talks about incentivizing borrowers, he means breaking kneecaps.
I am officially gone from
The Ringelmann effect shows how in certain structures and certain tasks, group efficiency is decreased. However, Köhler showed that in other structures for other tasks (conjunctive tasks), the group can incentivize weaker members to consistently perform better than when they are alone. As long as the Köhler discrepancy is low, the task is conjunctive and the group has a manner to view the contribution of individual members, then yes, a group -can- produce more than the sum of each person (i.e. the performance if each member performed the task alone, without any information about others performing the task at the same time or location).
It is also worth noting that both the Ringelmann and Köhler effects were described with regards to purely physical tasks, over 75 years ago. Their relevance in more complex and more intellectual tasks is highly disputed, in particular ones where solutions and methods to achieve solutions are non-obvious or novel. For instance, solving simple mazes exhibits social loafing (decreased performance relative to individuals), but as the maze's complexity increases, social loafing is eliminated, and group performance increases as they grow larger! This is of course a very "basic" cognitive task, but already illustrates that groups -do- out-perform individuals in correct conditions.
Yes, lots of MBAs or MBA-lights don't understand what they're talking about, but some people are actually interested in the concepts that are brought to light during such courses and go read about them, rather than just relying on the buzz-words and five minute discussion before the next subject arises.
I think the point is more that someone didn't wake up one day and invent the steam engine out of thin air. What came to be known as the steam engine evolved slowly (over hundreds of years in the case of the steam engine) with incremental changes, not all at once.
No,the GP's talking about something different than having a bunch of fungible people pull on a rope.
Suppose some designers want a device to be sleek and lightweight. The engineers naturally choose plastic, but the designers are displeased -- the prototype feels cheap and flimsy. This is nonsense to the engineers: the numbers say the design is rugged and light, and numbers don't lie. They think the designers want the impossible: for the product to be light and heavy at the same time.
The reason "synergy" hasn't happened is that people have split into cliques of like-minded people, working at cross purposes to the other group and reinforcing conformity of thinking in their own. If they worked together they'd realize that "feels solid in the hand" is something distinct from "rugged", then produce a device that is lighter than the competition but slightly heavier than it looks.
This is "synergy" in the sense the GP is using it. More commonly, "synergy" means to have two or more complementary business areas. This is a real phenomenon which is easier to achieve and natural in small businesses where people tend to have a clearer view of the big picture -- at least until the dis-economies of scale force them to focus on one business area. With a larger businesses it takes planning.
The problem is that "synergy" scenarios are often poorly thought out. I worked for a small software developer that sold hardware as well, so we could be a "one stop shop" for our clients. Other aspects of the "one stop shop" worked well: training services led to custom software projects which led to products which led to more training. The problem with hardware was that it's a commodity. We had to sell a high precision GPS handhelds at market prices, but margins were small. Our customer base didn't produce enough volume to have specialists, so hardware was a big, unprofitable distraction.
The problem *isn't* that we have too many buzzwords, it's that we don't have enough critical thinking. "Synergy" is a valid concept, but it takes more than a happy scenario and a label to slap on it to make that scenario happen.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If the group is aimed at the same task then they will each subconsciously reduce their own labor. It's like when I'm driving with my wife in the car, I don't pay attention because I know she will.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock