If you grew up during the 1970's, you may remember Saturday morning cartoons and in particular the animated musical educational program called Schoolhouse Rock! These short videos aired in between cartoons during commercial breaks, and they were only slightly longer in duration than the commercials themselves. Topics covered included history, civics, grammar, science, and mathematics. While I had several favorites, today I am thinking of the episode called "Mother Necessity", which made the claim that all of history's great inventions were thought up by men and women who were trying to solve a problem or satisfy a specific need.
So, while I won't necessarily argue with the creators of Schoolhouse Rock!, I would like to point out that the metal tin cans used for the preservation of food were used in the Netherlands as early as 1772 (the first patent for the invention of the tin can was awarded in 1810 to Peter Durand), though can openers weren't invented until 1855 in England and 1858 in the United States. Early tin cans were opened using a hammer and chisel or the sharp end of an axe. I understand the need to preserve food created a "necessity" for inventing the tin can. But why didn't the use of a tin can lead to the "necessity" of inventing a tool to open that same tin can? I can't imagine that a hammer and chisel or axe was so much better that no one thought to create a special tool for opening the tin cans. As a matter of record, opening a tin can with a hammer and chisel was actually dangerous, at least back in the day. Remember that antibiotics were still not yet invented either, so any small cut or laceration (which commonly occurred) could lead to a significant and potentially life-threatening infection!
The problem (i.e. the necessity) was clearly there, yet it too over 80 years before someone thought of designing a tool that made it easier to open a tin can. Unfortunately, the early can openers weren't easy to use, and to be honest, even the can openers that we use today aren't all that good (I'm not alone in that opinion). Maybe there's more to innovation and invention than just filling a need?
The editorial staff at Harvard Business Review wrote an introduction to a classic article by the management guru Peter Drucker called "The Discipline of Innovation" in which he listed not one, but seven sources of innovation. The introduction begins, "How much of innovation is inspiration, and how much is hard work? If it's mainly the former, then management's role is limited: Hire the right people, and get out of the way. If it's largely the latter, management must play a more vigorous role: Establish the right roles and processes, set clear goals and relevant measures, and review progress at every step. Peter Drucker, with the masterly subtlety that is his trademark, comes down somewhere in the middle."
Drucker defines innovation as the effort to create purposeful, focused change in an enterprise's economic or social potential. He suggests that innovations occasionally "spring from a flash of genius," but the overwhelming evidence suggest that these so-called "Eureka moments" are quite rare (see also my post "Where Good Ideas Come From" and the book of the same name by the author Steven Johnson). Indeed, Drucker once compared (see "Principles of Successful Innovation") "Eureka moments" to "miracle cures" in medicine:
"All experienced physicians have seen 'miracle cures.' Patients suffering from terminal illnesses recover suddenly - sometimes spontaneously, sometimes by going to faith healers, by switching to some absurd diet, or by sleeping during the day and being up and about all night. Yet no physician is going to put miracle cures into a textbook or into a course to be taught to medical students. They cannot be replicated, cannot be taught, cannot be learned. They are extremely rare; the overwhelming majority of terminal cases do die, after all."
The same is true for "Eureka moments" or what Drucker himself called "flashes of genius". He next mentions perhaps the greatest innovator of all time, Leonardo da Vinci, one of those rare individuals who seems to have been "kissed by the Muses". Drucker explains that da Vinci's notebooks provided several examples of incredibly innovative concepts and ideas for inventions that were way ahead of their time, including drawings for a submarine, helicopter, and flying machine. However, none of these inventions could have been built at the time with the technology and materials available during da Vinci's lifetime. Nor would there have been anyone receptive to them, as they wasn't a clear need for them (okay, maybe there is something to necessity after all).
Drucker lists seven sources of innovation:
1. Unexpected occurrences
Unexpected successes and failures frequently lead to opportunities for innovation and are often the easiest and simplest. These unexpected, unforeseen disruptions to the status quo compel individuals and organizations to adapt, explore, and even try unconventional solutions. Examples include Post-It Notes by 3M, the accidental discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming, and the widespread adoption of Zoom video conferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Incongruities
Incongruities between reality as it actually is and reality as it is assumed to be (or ought to be) is another common source of innovation. Examples include Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft (using private homes or automobiles to meet the needs of travelers and commuters) and smartphones (recognizing that a handheld phone can be so much more than just a phone).
3. Process needs
Innovations frequently occur when someone recognizes that a process can be optimized or streamlined. An example here is Amazon's innovations in supply chain management (which continue to this day with the potential to deliver products using drone technology).
4. Industry and market changes
Changes in regulatory requirements, consumer preferences, or shifting demographics frequently lead to innovation. Examples include the shift to plant-based and/or laboratory-grown meat products, electric vehicles, and telemedicine.
5. Demographic changes
Demographic changes include changes in age, size, and composition, which can lead to innovation. An example here includes the massive open online course (MOOC) such as Coursera, Khan Academy, and edX.
6. Changes in perception
Shifts in cultural norms, attitudes, and values pave the way for innovative products and services too. For example, as consumers have become environmentally conscious, new eco-friendly products have become more common.
7. New knowledge
The so-called "Eureka moments" or "flashes of genius" tend to fall into this category of sources of innovation. An example here is the CRISPR gene editing technology developed by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier.
The first four sources in the list are internal to the organization, industry, or service sector, while the last three sources are external and involve changes outside the organization or industry. Importantly, Drucker admitted that there isn't a clear distinction between each source, and there is likely some overlap between sources.
Drucker had a few final comments that I think are important to highlight. First, he strongly felt that "purposeful innovation" - the kind responsible for more than 90% in his estimate of all innovations - only occurs through hard work. He wrote, "In innovation as in any other work there is talent, there is ingenuity, there is predisposition. But when all is said and done, innovation becomes hard, focused, purposeful work making very great demands on diligence, on persistence, and on commitment. If these are lacking, no amount of talent, ingenuity, or knowledge will avail." Second and lastly, Drucker suggested that innovation takes time. He claimed that the lead time, particularly for innovation that stemmed from "new knowledge" takes around 50 years. Perhaps that is why the can opener took so long to be invented?
No comments:
Post a Comment