Innovation for Jobs

Innovation for Jobs

i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

Curt Carlson

Fri Apr 10 2015 17:37:46 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear Team,
I had a typically provocative and stimulating lunch with

Dear Team,
I had a typically provocative and stimulating lunch with David last week. Also, several months ago I gave an innovation workshop to about 50 leading academics and asked them if they were innovators? Only 5 thought they were or might be.
These two events got me to write up some thoughts about innovation, knowledge, and narrative.
https://www.practiceofinnovation.com
It helped me better understand what David has been doing and why it is important. All thoughts would be appreciated.
Best,
Curt


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Esko Kilpi

Sat Apr 11 2015 05:29:07 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear Curt,

Thank you very much!

As a comment to: “Most technological

Dear Curt,

Thank you very much!

As a comment to: “Most technological innovations are small, but they all matter. Thousands of small and medium sized innovations accumulate and occasionally another transformational innovation, like the smartphone, is created”

Having intimately followed the developments in mobile telephony and computing that led to the smartphone, here are some complementary thoughts: perhaps even a different narrative stating that it was an emergent process of not only thousands of innovations, but also personal connections, unexpected encounters, bending the rules and lobbying.

I believe that there is nothing more important than the way we think about the nature of organisations and technology, particularly how they become to be what they are.

Our dominant voice in management theory is the language of design and control: we know how things are, what we are doing and what is going to happen next. If you look at this from the sciences of complexity, you could say that we live in an unstable world where sometimes very small causes can have very large effects. This model of the world of technology and innovation sees the future under perpetual construction through the very small (micro) interactions of the diverse entities comprising it. The final “innovation” or final “form” toward which it moves is not given, nor can it be chosen. It is a highly complex, ongoing process of people relating to each other.

If we take this view, we move toward an understanding of innovation, and human action in general, as being in its essence a process of sense making.

Best wishes,

Esko

Some more thoughts on innovation: http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/2010/01/15/life-is-a-temporal-pattern-of-emotional-and-intellectual-exchange/ <ff1516ae82ae3cba193993292840bd3047292844>

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi <http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi <http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/> Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi


Esko Kilpi

Sat Apr 11 2015 05:34:20 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear Curt,

Thank you very much!

As a comment to: “Most technological

Dear Curt,

Thank you very much!

As a comment to: “Most technological innovations are small, but they all matter. Thousands of small and medium sized innovations accumulate and occasionally another transformational innovation, like the smartphone, is created”

Having intimately followed the developments in mobile telephony and computing that led to the smartphone, some complementary thoughts, perhaps even a different narrative, stating that it was an emergent process of not only thousands of innovations, but also personal connections, unexpected encounters, bending the rules and lobbying.

I believe that there is nothing more important than the way we think about the nature of organisations and technology, particularly how they become to be what they are.

Our dominant voice in management theory is the language of design and control: we know how things are, what we are doing and what is going to happen next. If you look at what is going on from the point of view of the sciences of complexity, you could say that we live in an unstable world where very small causes can have very large effects.

This model of the world of technology and innovation sees the future under perpetual construction through the very small (micro) interactions of the diverse entities comprising it. The final “innovation” or final “form” toward which it moves is not given. It is a highly complex, ongoing process of people relating to each other.

If we take this view, we move toward an understanding of innovation, and human action in general, as being in its essence a process of sense making.

Best wishes,

Esko

Some more thoughts on innovation: http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/2010/01/15/life-is-a-temporal-pattern-of-emotional-and-intellectual-exchange/ <ff1516ae82ae3cba193993292840bd3047292844>

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi <http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi <http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/> Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi


Herman Gyr

Sat Apr 11 2015 11:34:49 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Team,

What is interesting to me about the connection between narrative

Team,

What is interesting to me about the connection between narrative and new customer value is that in my observations of Curt’s work he always aims for the narrative. The disciplines of innovation he practices engage innovators in structuring their thinking from the start in the simplest possible form so that they can communicate their idea in a way that others can understand it and participate in making the idea as valuable as possible. The process of creation and iteration is one of producing a compelling story of the thing that is being innovated: the value proposition becomes the foundational narrative of the innovation.

I too was particularly intrigued by this: “Most technological innovations are small, but they all matter. Thousands of small and medium sized innovations accumulate and occasionally another transformational innovation, like the smartphone, is created.” Esko’s proposition in relation to this is that "the future (is) under perpetual construction through the very small (micro) interactions of the diverse entities comprising it. The final “innovation” or final “form” toward which it moves is not given. It is a highly complex, ongoing process of people relating to each other.”

Curt and I have been in conversations about the challenge of scale when it comes to certain innovations that are critical for humanity's continuing progress, e.g. in the realm of energy and the replacement of hydrocarbons as the dominant source of energy. This will require solutions at extraordinary scale, and Esko's notion of the future being “under perpetual construction through the very small micro interactions of diverse entities” makes a tremendous amount of sense to me in this respect as well. This will — particularly in the hyper connected world we now live in — ultimately allow for the kind of massive scale Curt and I have been discussing. Imagine millions of people around the world engaging in locally relevant, relatively small post-hydrocarbon solutions, connecting up and ultimately producing a kind of coherent form that will work at global scale.

Best,

H.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Herman Gyr, Ph.D.

Enterprise Development Group⎢+1 650 464 6419 ⎢ Skype: hermangyr ⎢ 930 Roble Ridge Road ⎢ Palo Alto, CA. 94306 ⎢ www.enterprisedevelop.com <http://www.enterprisedevelop.com/>


Curt Carlson

Sat Apr 11 2015 13:42:27 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thanks Esko and Herman—very interesting.

1) Yes, the value proposition is

Thanks Esko and Herman—very interesting.

1) Yes, the value proposition is the foundational narrative of innovation. That is where most innovations fail: they have no narrative (need, solution, and business model) that makes sense.

2) Yes, innovation starts with the free flow of information. Anything that gets in the way of that slows down the innovative process,e.g., people relating to each other. Information flow is one of SiVs main advantages.

3) Yes. "Our dominant voice in management theory is the language of design and control.” So is government. "There is nothing more important than the way we think about the nature of organizations.” True, my blog is devoted to that and I have seen that by moving the innovation process down in an organization billions of dollars of new market value can be created. Innovation is about creating surprising new knowledge and narratives. That requires a form of design and control that liberates people's creative potential to solve important problems. And, of course, it is not as a free-for-all. Jobs understood this balance between the right kind of directed control and extreme creative liberation.

4) Yes, scale is critical. Potential is moving down to the bottom of society where small groups can be ever more inventive and innovative. We discuss here all the time whether that will be significant enough to create meaningful net new jobs. Today essentially ALL net new jobs come from small companies that become big companies, so the idea of a billion flowers blooming as a mechanism for job growth needs more understanding (at least for me).

The scale of energy use is another example. Certainly there are tens of thousands of opportunities for conservation, energy production, and storage that make economic sense. They are being developed. But the scale of energy is so large, few get their heads around it. I wrote about that at Forbes in 2010 and not much has changed (http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/09/energy-policy-coal-technology-oil.html). Certainly all the smaller innovations will help but there need to be some huge ones. LEDs are one, natural gas is one, low-cost batteries would be one, next-generation nuclear power could do it, and eventually very low-cost solar will definitely make a difference, etc. These all scale. So far, we are hardly making a dent. I am optimistic that we will solve these problems but it will take much longer (2-5X) than most hope it will. It is hard to think about both exponentials and units of hundreds of billions.


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: Herman Gyr […]
Date: Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 8:34 AM
To: Esko Kilpi […]
Cc: C Carlson […], David Nordfors […], "[…]" […]
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

Team,

What is interesting to me about the connection between narrative and new customer value is that in my observations of Curt’s work he always aims for the narrative. The disciplines of innovation he practices engage innovators in structuring their thinking from the start in the simplest possible form so that they can communicate their idea in a way that others can understand it and participate in making the idea as valuable as possible. The process of creation and iteration is one of producing a compelling story of the thing that is being innovated: the value proposition becomes the foundational narrative of the innovation.

I too was particularly intrigued by this: “Most technological innovations are small, but they all matter. Thousands of small and medium sized innovations accumulate and occasionally another transformational innovation, like the smartphone, is created.” Esko’s proposition in relation to this is that "the future (is) under perpetual construction through the very small (micro) interactions of the diverse entities comprising it. The final “innovation” or final “form” toward which it moves is not given. It is a highly complex, ongoing process of people relating to each other.”

Curt and I have been in conversations about the challenge of scale when it comes to certain innovations that are critical for humanity's continuing progress, e.g. in the realm of energy and the replacement of hydrocarbons as the dominant source of energy. This will require solutions at extraordinary scale, and Esko's notion of the future being “under perpetual construction through the very small micro interactions of diverse entities” makes a tremendous amount of sense to me in this respect as well. This will — particularly in the hyper connected world we now live in — ultimately allow for the kind of massive scale Curt and I have been discussing. Imagine millions of people around the world engaging in locally relevant, relatively small post-hydrocarbon solutions, connecting up and ultimately producing a kind of coherent form that will work at global scale.

Best,

H.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Herman Gyr, Ph.D.

<cid:9D4B8664-B847-495A-93F6-A12AD92E6B08>EDG New Logo _ small.tiff
Enterprise Development Group⎢+1 650 464 6419 ⎢ Skype: hermangyr ⎢ 930 Roble Ridge Road ⎢ Palo Alto, CA. 94306 ⎢ www.enterprisedevelop.com<http://www.enterprisedevelop.com/>

Dear Curt,

Thank you very much!

As a comment to: “Most technological innovations are small, but they all matter. Thousands of small and medium sized innovations accumulate and occasionally another transformational innovation, like the smartphone, is created”

Having intimately followed the developments in mobile telephony and computing that led to the smartphone, some complementary thoughts, perhaps even a different narrative, stating that it was an emergent process of not only thousands of innovations, but also personal connections, unexpected encounters, bending the rules and lobbying.

I believe that there is nothing more important than the way we think about the nature of organisations and technology, particularly how they become to be what they are.

Our dominant voice in management theory is the language of design and control: we know how things are, what we are doing and what is going to happen next. If you look at what is going on from the point of view of the sciences of complexity, you could say that we live in an unstable world where very small causes can have very large effects.

This model of the world of technology and innovation sees the future under perpetual construction through the very small (micro) interactions of the diverse entities comprising it. The final “innovation” or final “form” toward which it moves is not given. It is a highly complex, ongoing process of people relating to each other.

If we take this view, we move toward an understanding of innovation, and human action in general, as being in its essence a process of sense making.

Best wishes,

Esko

Some more thoughts on innovation: http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/2010/01/15/life-is-a-temporal-pattern-of-emotional-and-intellectual-exchange/

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi<http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi<http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/> Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi

On 11 Apr 2015, at 00:37, Curt Carlson […] wrote:

Dear Team,
I had a typically provocative and stimulating lunch with David last week. Also, several months ago I gave an innovation workshop to about 50 leading academics and asked them if they were innovators? Only 5 thought they were or might be.
These two events got me to write up some thoughts about innovation, knowledge, and narrative.
https://www.practiceofinnovation.com<https://www.practiceofinnovation.com/>
It helped me better understand what David has been doing and why it is important. All thoughts would be appreciated.
Best,
Curt


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: 705a544f9a1ef124c57c409a3b25c39ea4b3c81d<393c129a6c123fbde4426682a933071b28325252>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/group/i4j2015/.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4j Mountain View 2015" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4j Mountain View 2015" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 12 2015 13:45:26 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Team, This is an amazing video of robotic achievement. It

Team, This is an amazing video of robotic achievement. It will rapidly get smaller and more capable. Best, C

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/M8YjvHYbZ9w?rel=0

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Herman Gyr

Sun Apr 12 2015 14:51:08 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Indeed – and owned by Google. Combine this with Deep

Indeed – and owned by Google. Combine this with Deep Mind (which Google also owns) and what future do you think they are envisioning and creating for us?

Sent from my iPhone


Vint Cerf

Sun Apr 12 2015 14:52:24 GMT-0400 (EDT)

"don't mess with Google…."

๐Ÿ™‚

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:51

"don't mess with Google…."

๐Ÿ™‚

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Herman Gyr […]
wrote:


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 12 2015 15:00:02 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Lots of possibilities since they have an effective monopoly at

Lots of possibilities since they have an effective monopoly at this point – and lots of data and access. Vint!

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 12 2015 15:00:30 GMT-0400 (EDT)

You beat me to it!

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO,

You beat me to it!

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Sun Apr 12 2015 16:25:05 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Friends,

I’m very happy to see this discussion. Curt, Esko and

Friends,

I’m very happy to see this discussion. Curt, Esko and Herman – you are taking this in a direction that I strongly sympathize with.

It should be fruitful to talk more about the humane part of innovation.

As you who know me know, I’ve been pushing for defining innovation as the introduction of new narrative for many years. Every innovation needs a name, so that we can refer to it, and a narrative so that we can relate to it. Otherwise it can’t exist. So it’s pure logics that innovation is the introduction of new shared language, There is nothing to argue about that. The question is if it’s relevant to define innovation as the introduction of new narrative. Innovation will introduce other things, too – like new technology, new business models, new markets – all the things that economists have written about.

My point of view: In the 80s, creating the new technology was the bottle-neck. So people concluded that if they could create technology better and faster, then that would lead to more innovation. This meant people could use innovation and technology as synonyms and it wouldn’t make much different in the discussion about the economy. Then, in the 90s, people started to say that ‘we make a lot of technology that never gets out of the lab. Innovation is about business, too!”. So business was being increasingly seen as the bottle-neck for innovation. So in people’s minds, the essence of innovation started to slide from tech to business.

Now all that was true and rational. Now we are entering the next phase. Now it’s beginning to go so fast to develop both technology and business infrastructure, we are less limited by that. People can develop a mind-blowing technology in no time and a single person can start a company with global supply chain, marketing and sales overnight! Now the primary problem for innovators is to build their story so that people will buy into it and want to be part of it. That goes for the development team – nowadays they are often a multidisciplinary team and it’s difficult for them to get over the internal language barriers. It goes for the market and the customers – you need to catch their attention to start with, and then co-opt them. Introducing new narrative is the bottle neck now. That’s why it’s relevant to see innovation as the introduction of new narrative.

My Innovation Journalism Fellowship program at Stanford was about that. It targeted journalism is a stakeholder in the innovation ecosystem. the one that can tell introduce new narratives across the silos, getting the readership to buy into them. They are catalyzing the introduction of new shared language – so they catalyze innovation. Their mandate is from the audience/citizens – which makes them an important player for democratic innovation economy. If you are interested in this, there is a paper from 2009 that sums up the program, the ideas, the activities, suggesting things to do and to research. http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/injo-6-1.pdf <b60bdff022e3fefe2ab928a9a7a614764b7f9e1e>
It’s a long paper here is a paragraph that sums it up:

In a functional innovation system, journalism will interact with other industries, universities and the public sector to expand journalism’s ability to explain how innovation happens, while maintaining journalistic principles. According to these principles, journalism is loyal to the citizens. By empowering citizens in matters of innovation, journalism enables societies to develop innovation economies. Accordingly, this chapter offers:

An overview of Innovation Journalism and its importance for journalism and modern society;
A summary of important concepts created as the initiative has developed: ‘attention work,’ and the ‘innovation communication system’
A discussion on how innovation is dependent on the introduction of new shared language.
Journalism and the innovation economy: Competitiveness and clusters, journalistic principles and appropriate business models for journalism
Toward an agenda for academic research on Innovation Journalism;
The status of innovation journalism as a global initiative, with descriptions of Innovation Journalism initiatives in Stanford, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, the EU, Pakistan and Mexico;
A view of the potential future of Innovation Journalism.

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 12 2015 16:51:02 GMT-0400 (EDT)

David, Thanks—interesting—see below. Best, Curt

It should be fruitful to talk

David, Thanks—interesting—see below. Best, Curt

It should be fruitful to talk more about the humane part of innovation.
Great.

Every innovation needs a name, so that we can refer to it, and a narrative so that we can relate to it. Otherwise it can’t exist. So it’s pure logics that innovation is the introduction of new shared language. There is nothing to argue about that.
In most cases it takes much more than a new narrative. "The creation of surprising new knowledge and narratives that have sustaining value for society"

My point of view: In the 80s, creating the new technology was the bottle-neck. So people concluded that if they could create technology better and faster, then that would lead to more innovation.
It does.

This meant people could use innovation and technology as synonyms and it wouldn’t make much different in the discussion about the economy. Then, in the 90s, people started to say that ‘we make a lot of technology that never gets out of the lab. Innovation is about business, too!”. So business was being increasingly seen as the bottle-neck for innovation. So in people’s minds, the essence of innovation started to slide from tech to business.
Well maybe. It has always been about both. People are just not good at the value creation part of the process. That is still true (I recently wrote a post about this). Creating the narrative is one part of the process — needs, solution, competition, business model, narrative, production, sales; needs, solution, competition, etc. (repeat and repeat and repeat until done).

Now it’s beginning to go so fast to develop both technology and business infrastructure, we are less limited by that.
Depends on the area. AI is hard, energy is hard, medicine is hard, cyber is hard, robotics is hard, etc.

People can develop a mind-blowing technology in no time and a single person can start a company with global supply chain, marketing and sales overnight!
Sometimes the second part is true.

Now the primary problem for innovators is to build their story so that people will buy into it and want to be part of it.
That is not what I see. It is developing the product and the business model for products, and yes there is new knowledge and a narrative around that.

That goes for the development team – nowadays they are often a multidisciplinary team and it’s difficult for them to get over the internal language barriers.
That is certainly true — most don’t try that hard or know what to do.

It goes for the market and the customers – you need to catch their attention to start with, and then co-opt them. Introducing new narrative is the bottle neck now.
For some markets (e.g., social media) more than others.

That’s why it’s relevant to see innovation as the introduction of new narrative.
Again, to me it is one of the things you have to do. It is not just any-old-narrative when you are developing a product or something that will be sustainable.

My Innovation Journalism Fellowship program at Stanford was about that. It targeted journalism is a stakeholder in the innovation ecosystem.
Good.

Their mandate is from the audience/citizens – which makes them an important player for democratic innovation economy.
True.

In a functional innovation system, journalism will interact with other industries, universities and the public sector to expand journalism’s ability to explain how innovation happens, while maintaining journalistic principles. According to these principles, journalism is loyal to the citizens.

That would be an improvement. VERY few MSM folks have any real understanding of value creation and innovation.

By empowering citizens in matters of innovation, journalism enables societies to develop innovation economies. Accordingly, this chapter offers:

* An overview of Innovation Journalism and its importance for journalism and modern society;
* A summary of important concepts created as the initiative has developed: ‘attention work,’ and the ‘innovation communication system’
* A discussion on how innovation is dependent on the introduction of new shared language.
* Journalism and the innovation economy: Competitiveness and clusters, journalistic principles and appropriate business models for journalism
* Toward an agenda for academic research on Innovation Journalism;
* The status of innovation journalism as a global initiative, with descriptions of Innovation Journalism initiatives in Stanford, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, the EU, Pakistan and Mexico;
* A view of the potential future of Innovation Journalism.

All great topics.

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]


Marjory Blumenthal

Sun Apr 12 2015 17:51:21 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Awesome–thanks for sharing! Seeing these things only intermittently, the
progress really

Awesome–thanks for sharing! Seeing these things only intermittently, the
progress really is impressive!
M

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Curt Carlson […]


David A Nordfors

Sun Apr 12 2015 18:10:34 GMT-0400 (EDT)

HI Curt – good points
——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]

HI Curt – good points
——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 12 2015 20:09:11 GMT-0400 (EDT)

David, thanks. Here is what I am trying to sort

David, thanks. Here is what I am trying to sort out. The “narrative” that customers see is a fraction (but critical) of the total “narrative” that needs to be created to develop a sustainable product (for as least awhile). Indeed, there is not a single person who gets the "entire narrative” (e.g., the iPhone team) and it is not required. And narrative by itself is not value. Your definition puts many concepts into one bucket and that doesn’t help me to create new innovations. Your emphasis on the narrative, as I understand it, does help: it is essential and for many products (Nike) it is close to their entire value proposition. Maybe this is clear to everyone else.

The "narrative of innovation" resonates with me. There is no such thing today that is simple, correct, and that people can hold in their heads. One example I posted on my website is the so called Valley of Death. That is completely the wrong narrative!


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Esko Kilpi

Mon Apr 13 2015 03:37:49 GMT-0400 (EDT)

An interesting read:

Steve Jobs: "Creativity is just connecting things. When

An interesting read:

Steve Jobs: "Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty, because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things.”

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/ideas-flow/ <d79f1fbd344f0044ebf0d73b0dc111057350bf80>

Best wishes,

Esko

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi <http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi


Curt Carlson

Mon Apr 13 2015 11:26:02 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Very nice. Yes—that is my experience too. One of the

Very nice. Yes—that is my experience too. One of the keys is you need to experience a lot of diverse things from a lot of diverse people — that is the input. Jobs was the master at that. When we sold Siri to him he was the only one who got it. He was calling our CEO 5 times a day. Not a VP, Jobs. He had been doing his homework so as soon as he saw Siri he understood how important it could be for Apple. We called up every other company you could think of and none of their VPs got it. I suspect it is because they don’t have the intense iteration process that was conducted throughout Apple when Jobs was there. Is there someone at Apple still doing that? Vint?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Vanda Scartezini

Mon Apr 13 2015 14:52:57 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear all

You guys write a lotยŠ.I am not even

Dear all

You guys write a lotยŠ.I am not even having time to analyse all emails .
Don¹t you like wiki model where everybody write there and you can enter and
read and answer when possible during the day? The goos alternative is you
do not have relevant emails disappearing into your mail box among hundreds
others?
With the economy going down here rethink job is a must and I love to have
more creative ideas about and share with my communities. I was traveling a
lot these weeks but will have more time, I hope, this one to read and
contribute more carefully.
Best regards

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.


Deepa prahalad

Mon Apr 13 2015 16:02:21 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi everyone,
I have been following this tread closely because this

Hi everyone,
I have been following this tread closely because this is a favorite topic of mine.  Narrative has always been a huge piece of innovation/ new product introduction, and I think that there are several places where it adds value.  

1) Internal Narrative about purpose
I would place the famous Peter Drucker question, "What is the purpose?",  and the "moonshots" that companies identify in this category.  These do not have a direct, measurable outcome but a huge impact on creating internal motivation and direction, provided that they are done well (e.g. a Coke within arm's reach of everyone on the planet, etc.) In the cases of business leaders like Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. the vision that they articulate also adds value because they can attract great people to work with them, and sometimes buys forgiveness when efforts fall short.  A good narrative at this stage in my view is about intentions (how we are making the world a better place).  It should also give some indication about the means (how we will train/ reward people, expected standards of behavior)  for how the given organization will strive to achieve those objectives.
2) Customer Narrative  From the consumers point of view, the relationship often works in reverse.  People become interested in your vision and views if they connect emotionally with the product/ service after interacting with it.  (This is the transformation that Curt described in earlier posts).  Many brands create this emotional connection at many different price points – but they do have one thing in common:  Successful companies make people feel good about themselves. In the book I co-authored, Predictable Magic, we used the Hero's Journey from Joseph Campbell to describe how consumers navigate the marketplace.  The Moment of Truth in this construct happens post-purchase when people actually interact and find that their experience meets or exceeds their expectations based on the narrative that has been presented. In the best cases, people  are inspired to do more and become evangelists (app developers, Facebook fans, online reviews).  
What makes a narrative compelling is more than the fact that it is novel or has a "worthy" goal.  It has to be backed by systems and processes that make it possible to execute and build trust.  An analogy would be the fact that in some places democracy is about the right to vote, and on others it spans to include personal freedom and economic opportunity.  The outcome of any real innovation effort is uncertain by definition, so codes of conduct are incredibly important (the role of religion, etc is obvious here).  Non-profits create amazing narratives, common purpose, etc, but often often produce incredibly lackluster results.  We also need to look at what the reality any narrative would create for individuals and society at large.  There are many narratives that are shared, connect emotionally and are backed by systems that are incredibly destructive (ISIS, Nazi Germany).  I think a focus on ethics/ empathy is a necessary criteria as narratives are created (at least a Hippocratic -type Do No Harm condition).   
In my experience, I have found that because of new strategic frameworks and Big Data, companies have gotten a lot better at identifying potential opportunities, but still lag in understand consumer mindset/ emotions and connecting with them.   When there is a significant gap between the story and the reality, the result is not only a failed innovation but a dissolution of trust.  Many of the best companies today are going after the same stated goals – sustainability, addressing inequality, etc.  As I remind people during many presentations, people are not waiting anxiously to download mission statements.  They are waiting to see and feel something that taps into their aspirations and inspires them.  Great narratives bring these aspirations closer to the surface. 
I very often use my father CK Prahalad's tests:
Will is change the conversation?Does it show the opportunity?Will it lead to some action?and most importantly – Who will be better off because of this work?    
Sorry to ramble on here.  I have probably been way more succinct in two posts that I am sharing here:
Learning from Everyone

https://hbr.org/2011/12/why-trust-matters-more-than-ev/

BestDeepa 


Curt Carlson

Mon Apr 13 2015 19:55:31 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thanks. I took a w/s with CK once—terrific. Below.
Curt

1) Internal

Thanks. I took a w/s with CK once—terrific. Below.
Curt

1) Internal Narrative about purpose

I would place the famous Peter Drucker question, "What is the purpose?", and the "moonshots" that companies identify in this category. These do not have a direct, measurable outcome but a huge impact on creating internal motivation and direction, provided that they are done well (e.g. a Coke within arm's reach of everyone on the planet, etc.)
True but Jobs did not do that—a distraction. The commercial projects were fascinating enough.

In the cases of business leaders like Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. the vision that they articulate also adds value because they can attract great people to work with them,
Yes indeed.

and sometimes buys forgiveness when efforts fall short.
Inside-but not outside.

A good narrative at this stage in my view is about intentions (how we are making the world a better place). It should also give some indication about the means (how we will train/ reward people, expected standards of behavior) for how the given organization will strive to achieve those objectives.
Right.

2) Customer Narrative

From the consumers point of view, the relationship often works in reverse. People become interested in your vision and views if they connect emotionally with the product/service after interacting with it. (This is the transformation that Curt described in earlier posts). Many brands create this emotional connection at many different price points – but they do have one thing in common: Successful companies make people feel good about themselves.
Nice. But, for example, GE, or, or — I worked there?

In the book I co-authored, Predictable Magic, we used the Hero's Journey from Joseph Campbell to describe how consumers navigate the marketplace. The Moment of Truth in this construct happens post-purchase when people actually interact and find that their experience meets or exceeds their expectations based on the narrative that has been presented.
Expectations.

In the best cases, people are inspired to do more and become evangelists (app developers, Facebook fans, online reviews).

What makes a narrative compelling is more than the fact that it is novel or has a "worthy" goal. It has to be backed by systems and processes that make it possible to execute and build trust.
Yes—trust.

An analogy would be the fact that in some places democracy is about the right to vote, and on others it spans to include personal freedom and economic opportunity. The outcome of any real innovation effort is uncertain by definition, so codes of conduct are incredibly important (the role of religion, etc is obvious here).
Interesting example. I was once in Singapore at an invited conference of folks like here and a Chinese visiting scholar at Harvard said the main advantage of America was our Judaeo Christian background. That was interesting, why? He said that no system can wrote down all the laws—most of them have to be part of the culture with no need to be explicit.

Non-profits create amazing narratives, common purpose, etc, but often often produce incredibly lackluster results.
True. The narrative is everything.

We also need to look at what the reality any narrative would create for individuals and society at large. There are many narratives that are shared, connect emotionally and are backed by systems that are incredibly destructive (ISIS, Nazi Germany). I think a focus on ethics/ empathy is a necessary criteria as narratives are created (at least a Hippocratic -type Do No Harm condition).
Indeed.

In my experience, I have found that because of new strategic frameworks and Big Data, companies have gotten a lot better at identifying potential opportunities, but still lag in understand consumer mindset/ emotions and connecting with them.
Agree. Very rare.

When there is a significant gap between the story and the reality, the result is not only a failed innovation but a dissolution of trust.
Right.

Many of the best companies today are going after the same stated goals – sustainability, addressing inequality, etc.
I see teams all over the world working on the same stuff with no competitive advantage.

As I remind people during many presentations, people are not waiting anxiously to download mission statements. They are waiting to see and feel something that taps into their aspirations and inspires them. Great narratives bring these aspirations closer to the surface.
Right.

I very often use my father CK Prahalad's tests:
Will is change the conversation?
Does it show the opportunity?
Will it lead to some action?
and most importantly – Who will be better off because of this work?

Sorry to ramble on here. I have probably been way more succinct in two posts that I am sharing here:

Learning from Everyone<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa-prahalad/learning-from-everyone_b_664291.html>

https://hbr.org/2011/12/why-trust-matters-more-than-ev/
Thanks

Best
Deepa

________________________________


David Nordfors

Mon Apr 13 2015 20:35:48 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi Vanda,

I am interested in the Wiki model and it

Hi Vanda,

I am interested in the Wiki model and it will be fantastic if people in this group want to test it! We just need a good narrative to start with and an understanding how to work with it.

Vanda – are you thinking about some topic?

If anyone is interested, we can take our narrative discussion and wikify it.

Anyone?

/D

Sent from my iPhone


Vanda Scartezini

Tue Apr 14 2015 12:13:59 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi all,
Jobs are more and more challenge for developing

Hi all,
Jobs are more and more challenge for developing countries where we have a
huge gap on education inside countries, with highly educated people and some
times without opportunities inside the countries and by the other side
poorly educated people where jobs space is disappearing.
The challenge is how to bring innovation to this debate that enlighten new
solutions to this ancient problem that now became urgentยŠ

We had done some experiences here ( as a not for profit organisation) on
the poor side, on e-waste field.
We have trained 300 professors and sent them back to their regions with
kits to disassembly computers & mobiles in a correct way, encouraging them
to set up unites and retraining people in the streets and give opportunity
to them to work together, setting up organisations not formally in each
region and we add to the solution company that would bought the result.
It worked. We reduced ambiental damage as well as health care costs and very
poor people (mostly homeless people) has now an organised way to get honest
money ( though not formal since majority has no documents, addresses etc to
formalize anything)
But I did this in this Sate ­ Sao Paulo ­ the richest in the country ­
where I live,
My first question is : which are the points of attention to do any
innovative initiative in a really poor region where the market principles do
not work as we understand?
Being in the government in a high position I had opportunities to deal with
different situations in this large country to understand each region demands
a peculiar innovation, tailored for that peculiar conditions. But yet I
believe some framework shall exist to help to chose the best ways. Is it
true? Do we need such framework?

AnywayยŠ just thinking about this side of the worldยŠ
Best regards,
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.


Esko Kilpi

Tue Apr 14 2015 14:54:42 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Absolutely!

I am in. More on the The Wiki Way of

Absolutely!

I am in. More on the The Wiki Way of Working Together http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/2014/04/15/the-wiki-way-of-working/ <8a9d0f47e06df876477f5f7b42fe15fac0344cef>

Best wishes,

Esko

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi <http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi


Jerry Michalski

Tue Apr 14 2015 14:58:30 GMT-0400 (EDT)

One of the simplest wikis available today is Google Sites,

One of the simplest wikis available today is Google Sites, which was once
Jotspot.

Simple to set up, simple to use. Yet few people use it ๐Ÿ™‚

Happy to help set something up on a Site.


David A Nordfors

Wed Apr 15 2015 12:35:01 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Curt – i wrote a blog post back in 2008

Curt – i wrote a blog post back in 2008 about this – we go way back with this discussion! It’s actually better than much of what I’ve tried to say here and it links your definition with the narrative definition of innovation – so I’m simply pasting it in here. Perhaps this can be our consensus?

http://blog.innovationjournalism.org/2008/09/speed-of-new-words-as-innovation.html <a9284e1ee0dfbfabbcc51938a00d8672947db901>
The Speed of New Words as an Innovation Indicator
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Confusion_of_Tongues.png>
I recently had the great pleasure of being one of the World Economic Forum "Innovation 100" who convened here at Stanford in order to discuss the reasons behind innovative clusters. I will tell you more about the details when the WEF releases its report.

The World Economic Forum Innovation 100 summit is a part of their work on producing an 'Innovation Heatmap' of the world. People have ideas all over the world, but where are the places they are being successful, and what is it with these places that makes it happen just there? Finding the places is not so tricky, once they are successful in innovating – like Silicon Valley. But it is very difficult to nail down a good set of indicators that are useful for benchmarking innovation hot spots, offer a clue of why innovation is going well or not, and that can predict which are the coming hot spots.

So far, the number of registered patents is considered as one of the most important indicators, but it is far from the whole story. Patents can be key in some sectors, like pharma industry, but in other innovation fields like software and services, patents are much less relevant. A few years ago I edited a book <http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vfi-03-01.pdf> that looks at intellectual property issues in the context of commercialization of academic research. It is a complex issue.

There are today lists that rank innovative regions. The European Innovation Scoreboard <http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=5&parentID=51> is one of them. The rankings usually use indicators like those provided in the US Science and Engineering indicators from NSF <http://cordis.europa.eu/indicators/>, or the EU Science and Technology Indicators from Cordis. <1b3d36daf4bc40788c7c898c486477079ce3a76e> These indicators are good for assessing things like educational level of workforce, number of registered patents or published research papers – the types of numbers that are possible to measure in surveys or by scanning public registers. They usually miss out on one crucial issue for innovation: mobility. Mobility can be between various professional domains: innovation is not driven by science OR technology OR business OR politics, but by the interaction between them. Mobility is also geographical: Silicon Valley hosts people from all over the world. Even though it seems doable to trace the mobility of people, it is a controversial thing to do – people have the right to privacy. It is also difficult to quantify in an easy way (its much easier with number of patents or math test ratings)

Innovation is often about new combinations of existing concepts, or re-framing something in a new context. In the seventies, very few thought of computers having anything to do with storing pictures, even less music. Bringing artists into the world of computers and vice versa was probably more important for innovation than doubling the number of excellent Cobol programmers (the biggest programming language of that day). At the same time, many innovation scoreboards will care more for programmers than artists, and not think of addressing the communication between them. The people running such scoreboards may have some valid concerns about how to address such issues: how does any measurable quantity relating to artists relate to innovation? Does the number of art galleries scale with innovation? How? How can the innovative interaction between artists and programmers be measured?

I have a hunch that innovation hot spots are more likely to be places with low thresholds between people doing different things, where people easily get to know each other, and where they can easily interact in making novelties happen. I imagine they are places with a high concentration of people that find few things as important as the next big thing, who want to be a part of it, and who like chatting about it with anybody who is interested, regardless of profession or background. In Silicon Valley, it happens that people start companies with people they met at their children's birthday parties.

All this requires one thing: This diversity of people in the innovation ecosystem need to share a language that allows them to chat about the stuff that interests them. Otherwise they will have a tough time sharing interests and adding their own parts to it in a way that other people will understand. Innovation is about the introduction of novelties, which often come with new words and narratives, so I guess I am suggesting that innovation hotspots are more likely to be places where people in the innovation ecosystem can rapidly develop new shared language.

Since a few years back, there are tools on the Internet that can measure the development of language. Google Trends <http://www.google.com/trends> is one entertaining example, it 'charts how often a particular search term is entered relative the total search volume across various regions of the world, and in various languages' (Wikipedia). I think future key innovation indicators can be found through sources like Google or Facebook, finding the hotspots on the geographical world map, as well as the social map, where new language is growing the fastest, also analyzing how the new language connects to market value, weighing these things together.

Today, not many of the people dealing with how we innovate give much conscious thought of how we generate the shared language that is needed for any process of innovation or successful outcome thereof. Sociolinguistics and studies of innovation can be a great pair!

Here are some arguments, linking the thought about language as an innovation indicator back to earlier thoughts posted on this blog:

The formation of new shared language is always a part of innovation <http://www.innovationjournalism.org/blog/2007/03/new-concept-innovation-journalism-and.html>.

A concept requires the following language components in order to be shared by people:
A Name – so that it can be referred to
A Definition – so that it can be identified
A Narrative – so that it can be related to and put into context; a narrative is needed to relate a concept to the surroundings and lives of people, to cultures, or to other concepts
Innovation is "the process of creating and introducing new customer value to the market" (as defined by C. Carlson and W. Wilmot <http://www.sri.com/about/innovation-book.html>). This makes it always into interaction between many people, requiring new language.
Innovation is the creation and introduction of new customervalue to the market
In order to introduce something, it needs to becommunicated
Communication requires shared language
New concepts need new names, definitions and narratives to be a part of the language
The new names and definitions need to be called to peoples attention so that the new things can be discussed and introduced in our language.
People's attention will influenced by attention workers <http://www.innovationjournalism.org/blog/2008/03/attention-work-vs-knowledge-work.html> – professionals who generate and broker peoples attention, such as journalism, PR, marketing or lobbying – who have a stake in innovation. They typically take part in the innovation value chain by acting either in the interest of the sources of new language (PR, Marketing, Lobbying) or in the interest of the audience for new language (journalism). The attention workers of different sorts interact with each other, forming an ecosystem which will be facilitating the formation and introduction of new shared language. It may be referred to as the innovation communication system <http://www.innovationjournalism.org/blog/2006/10/pr-and-innovation-communication-system.html>.

As I said above, innovation is not about science OR technology OR business OR politics, etc. – it is about the connection between them! All involved professional fields have their own language. The concept of 'attention workers' and the 'innovation communication system' introduces incentives and mechanisms for creating shared language between different sectors and professions who come in touch with each other through innovation.

I believe our ability to generate new shared language is one of the bottlenecks for innovation. It is especially challenging to 'bridge verticals'. People in different professions can be talking about the same things without understanding each other, because they have different language for it. Sometimes different specialists don't have words for what other specialists are doing: Most politicians don't understand radioengineering and most radioengineers don't understand political science. Bridging them is an opportunity for attention workers, the key professional group from the societal point of view are the journalists – the attention workers who act in the interest of the readership (PR are attention workers who act in the interest of the sources – they are both needed in the bigger game).

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]


David A Nordfors

Wed Apr 15 2015 12:42:08 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Vanda, Esko, Jerry & friends,

Let’s set up a Wiki!
Let

Vanda, Esko, Jerry & friends,

Let’s set up a Wiki!
Let me first have a look at solutions for the i4j.info site. If we do it there, it will interact with our i4j Encyclopedia: the encyclopedia terms will be automatically tagged within the wiki text. And the Wiki can be used for constructing Encyclopedia terms.

I suggest we test using a wiki for writing the Encyclopedia term “Definition(s) of Innovation”

I’ll look into it now.

/D

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]


Vanda Scartezini

Wed Apr 15 2015 13:09:35 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Looks great David,
. If you want to see our

Looks great David,
. If you want to see our "at large" open wiki at ICANN, you can go to :
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+Meetings
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.


Ivan Kaye

Thu Apr 16 2015 03:16:23 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Curt and David

What makes a narrative compelling is more than

Curt and David

What makes a narrative compelling is more than the fact that it is novel or has a "worthy" goal. It has to be backed by systems and processes that make it possible to execute and build trust.
Yes—trust.

This in my view is a fundamental component of innovation… and there is an amazing formula for Trust
TRUST = Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy
Self-orientation

Best
Ivan

From: David A Nordfors [mailto:[…]]
Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2015 2:35 AM
To: Curtis Carlson
Cc: Deepa prahalad; Esko Kilpi; Vinton G. Cerf; Herman Gyr; […]
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

Curt – i wrote a blog post back in 2008 about this – we go way back with this discussion! It’s actually better than much of what I’ve tried to say here and it links your definition with the narrative definition of innovation – so I’m simply pasting it in here. Perhaps this can be our consensus?

http://blog.innovationjournalism.org/2008/09/speed-of-new-words-as-innovation.html
The Speed of New Words as an Innovation Indicator
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Confusion_of_Tongues.png]<1505ce472d54995f16211fff81931e0b47129056>
I recently had the great pleasure of being one of the World Economic Forum "Innovation 100" who convened here at Stanford in order to discuss the reasons behind innovative clusters. I will tell you more about the details when the WEF releases its report.

The World Economic Forum Innovation 100 summit is a part of their work on producing an 'Innovation Heatmap' of the world. People have ideas all over the world, but where are the places they are being successful, and what is it with these places that makes it happen just there? Finding the places is not so tricky, once they are successful in innovating – like Silicon Valley. But it is very difficult to nail down a good set of indicators that are useful for benchmarking innovation hot spots, offer a clue of why innovation is going well or not, and that can predict which are the coming hot spots.

So far, the number of registered patents is considered as one of the most important indicators, but it is far from the whole story. Patents can be key in some sectors, like pharma industry, but in other innovation fields like software and services, patents are much less relevant. A few years ago I edited a book<http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vfi-03-01.pdf> that looks at intellectual property issues in the context of commercialization of academic research. It is a complex issue.

There are today lists that rank innovative regions. The European Innovation Scoreboard<http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=5&parentID=51> is one of them. The rankings usually use indicators like those provided in the US Science and Engineering indicators from NSF<http://cordis.europa.eu/indicators/>, or the EU Science and Technology Indicators from Cordis.<1b3d36daf4bc40788c7c898c486477079ce3a76e> These indicators are good for assessing things like educational level of workforce, number of registered patents or published research papers – the types of numbers that are possible to measure in surveys or by scanning public registers. They usually miss out on one crucial issue for innovation: mobility. Mobility can be between various professional domains: innovation is not driven by science OR technology OR business OR politics, but by the interaction between them. Mobility is also geographical: Silicon Valley hosts people from all over the world. Even though it seems doable to trace the mobility of people, it is a controversial thing to do – people have the right to privacy. It is also difficult to quantify in an easy way (its much easier with number of patents or math test ratings)

Innovation is often about new combinations of existing concepts, or re-framing something in a new context. In the seventies, very few thought of computers having anything to do with storing pictures, even less music. Bringing artists into the world of computers and vice versa was probably more important for innovation than doubling the number of excellent Cobol programmers (the biggest programming language of that day). At the same time, many innovation scoreboards will care more for programmers than artists, and not think of addressing the communication between them. The people running such scoreboards may have some valid concerns about how to address such issues: how does any measurable quantity relating to artists relate to innovation? Does the number of art galleries scale with innovation? How? How can the innovative interaction between artists and programmers be measured?

I have a hunch that innovation hot spots are more likely to be places with low thresholds between people doing different things, where people easily get to know each other, and where they can easily interact in making novelties happen. I imagine they are places with a high concentration of people that find few things as important as the next big thing, who want to be a part of it, and who like chatting about it with anybody who is interested, regardless of profession or background. In Silicon Valley, it happens that people start companies with people they met at their children's birthday parties.

All this requires one thing: This diversity of people in the innovation ecosystem need to share a language that allows them to chat about the stuff that interests them. Otherwise they will have a tough time sharing interests and adding their own parts to it in a way that other people will understand. Innovation is about the introduction of novelties, which often come with new words and narratives, so I guess I am suggesting that innovation hotspots are more likely to be places where people in the innovation ecosystem can rapidly develop new shared language.

Since a few years back, there are tools on the Internet that can measure the development of language. Google Trends<http://www.google.com/trends> is one entertaining example, it 'charts how often a particular search term is entered relative the total search volume across various regions of the world, and in various languages' (Wikipedia). I think future key innovation indicators can be found through sources like Google or Facebook, finding the hotspots on the geographical world map, as well as the social map, where new language is growing the fastest, also analyzing how the new language connects to market value, weighing these things together.

Today, not many of the people dealing with how we innovate give much conscious thought of how we generate the shared language that is needed for any process of innovation or successful outcome thereof. Sociolinguistics and studies of innovation can be a great pair!

Here are some arguments, linking the thought about language as an innovation indicator back to earlier thoughts posted on this blog:

The formation of new shared language is always a part of innovation<http://www.innovationjournalism.org/blog/2007/03/new-concept-innovation-journalism-and.html>.

A concept requires the following language components in order to be shared by people:

1. A Name – so that it can be referred to
2. A Definition – so that it can be identified
3. A Narrative – so that it can be related to and put into context; a narrative is needed to relate a concept to the surroundings and lives of people, to cultures, or to other concepts
Innovation is "the process of creating and introducing new customer value to the market" (as defined by C. Carlson and W. Wilmot<http://www.sri.com/about/innovation-book.html>). This makes it always into interaction between many people, requiring new language.

1. Innovation is the creation and introduction of new customervalue to the market
2. In order to introduce something, it needs to becommunicated
3. Communication requires shared language
4. New concepts need new names, definitions and narratives to be a part of the language
5. The new names and definitions need to be called to peoples attention so that the new things can be discussed and introduced in our language.
6. People's attention will influenced by attention workers<http://www.innovationjournalism.org/blog/2008/03/attention-work-vs-knowledge-work.html> – professionals who generate and broker peoples attention, such as journalism, PR, marketing or lobbying – who have a stake in innovation. They typically take part in the innovation value chain by acting either in the interest of the sources of new language (PR, Marketing, Lobbying) or in the interest of the audience for new language (journalism). The attention workers of different sorts interact with each other, forming an ecosystem which will be facilitating the formation and introduction of new shared language. It may be referred to as the innovation communication system<http://www.innovationjournalism.org/blog/2006/10/pr-and-innovation-communication-system.html>.

As I said above, innovation is not about science OR technology OR business OR politics, etc. – it is about the connection between them! All involved professional fields have their own language. The concept of 'attention workers' and the 'innovation communication system' introduces incentives and mechanisms for creating shared language between different sectors and professions who come in touch with each other through innovation.

I believe our ability to generate new shared language is one of the bottlenecks for innovation. It is especially challenging to 'bridge verticals'. People in different professions can be talking about the same things without understanding each other, because they have different language for it. Sometimes different specialists don't have words for what other specialists are doing: Most politicians don't understand radioengineering and most radioengineers don't understand political science. Bridging them is an opportunity for attention workers, the key professional group from the societal point of view are the journalists – the attention workers who act in the interest of the readership (PR are attention workers who act in the interest of the sources – they are both needed in the bigger game).

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]

Thanks. I took a w/s with CK once—terrific. Below.
Curt

1) Internal Narrative about purpose

I would place the famous Peter Drucker question, "What is the purpose?", and the "moonshots" that companies identify in this category. These do not have a direct, measurable outcome but a huge impact on creating internal motivation and direction, provided that they are done well (e.g. a Coke within arm's reach of everyone on the planet, etc.)
True but Jobs did not do that—a distraction. The commercial projects were fascinating enough.

In the cases of business leaders like Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. the vision that they articulate also adds value because they can attract great people to work with them,
Yes indeed.

and sometimes buys forgiveness when efforts fall short.
Inside-but not outside.

A good narrative at this stage in my view is about intentions (how we are making the world a better place). It should also give some indication about the means (how we will train/ reward people, expected standards of behavior) for how the given organization will strive to achieve those objectives.
Right.

2) Customer Narrative

From the consumers point of view, the relationship often works in reverse. People become interested in your vision and views if they connect emotionally with the product/service after interacting with it. (This is the transformation that Curt described in earlier posts). Many brands create this emotional connection at many different price points – but they do have one thing in common: Successful companies make people feel good about themselves.
Nice. But, for example, GE, or, or — I worked there?

In the book I co-authored, Predictable Magic, we used the Hero's Journey from Joseph Campbell to describe how consumers navigate the marketplace. The Moment of Truth in this construct happens post-purchase when people actually interact and find that their experience meets or exceeds their expectations based on the narrative that has been presented.
Expectations.

In the best cases, people are inspired to do more and become evangelists (app developers, Facebook fans, online reviews).

What makes a narrative compelling is more than the fact that it is novel or has a "worthy" goal. It has to be backed by systems and processes that make it possible to execute and build trust.
Yes—trust.

An analogy would be the fact that in some places democracy is about the right to vote, and on others it spans to include personal freedom and economic opportunity. The outcome of any real innovation effort is uncertain by definition, so codes of conduct are incredibly important (the role of religion, etc is obvious here).
Interesting example. I was once in Singapore at an invited conference of folks like here and a Chinese visiting scholar at Harvard said the main advantage of America was our Judaeo Christian background. That was interesting, why? He said that no system can wrote down all the laws—most of them have to be part of the culture with no need to be explicit.

Non-profits create amazing narratives, common purpose, etc, but often often produce incredibly lackluster results.
True. The narrative is everything.

We also need to look at what the reality any narrative would create for individuals and society at large. There are many narratives that are shared, connect emotionally and are backed by systems that are incredibly destructive (ISIS, Nazi Germany). I think a focus on ethics/ empathy is a necessary criteria as narratives are created (at least a Hippocratic -type Do No Harm condition).
Indeed.

In my experience, I have found that because of new strategic frameworks and Big Data, companies have gotten a lot better at identifying potential opportunities, but still lag in understand consumer mindset/ emotions and connecting with them.
Agree. Very rare.

When there is a significant gap between the story and the reality, the result is not only a failed innovation but a dissolution of trust.
Right.

Many of the best companies today are going after the same stated goals – sustainability, addressing inequality, etc.
I see teams all over the world working on the same stuff with no competitive advantage.

As I remind people during many presentations, people are not waiting anxiously to download mission statements. They are waiting to see and feel something that taps into their aspirations and inspires them. Great narratives bring these aspirations closer to the surface.
Right.

I very often use my father CK Prahalad's tests:
Will is change the conversation?
Does it show the opportunity?
Will it lead to some action?
and most importantly – Who will be better off because of this work?

Sorry to ramble on here. I have probably been way more succinct in two posts that I am sharing here:

Learning from Everyone<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa-prahalad/learning-from-everyone_b_664291.html>

https://hbr.org/2011/12/why-trust-matters-more-than-ev/
Thanks

Best
Deepa

________________________________
From: Curt Carlson […]
To: Esko Kilpi […]
Cc: David A Nordfors […]; Vinton G. Cerf […]; Herman Gyr […]; "[…]" […]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

Very nice. Yes—that is my experience too. One of the keys is you need to experience a lot of diverse things from a lot of diverse people — that is the input. Jobs was the master at that. When we sold Siri to him he was the only one who got it. He was calling our CEO 5 times a day. Not a VP, Jobs. He had been doing his homework so as soon as he saw Siri he understood how important it could be for Apple. We called up every other company you could think of and none of their VPs got it. I suspect it is because they don’t have the intense iteration process that was conducted throughout Apple when Jobs was there. Is there someone at Apple still doing that? Vint?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com<https://www.practiceofinnovation.com>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: Esko Kilpi […]
Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 12:37 AM
To: C Carlson […]
Cc: David Nordfors […], Vint Cerf […], Herman Gyr […], "[…]" […]
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

An interesting read:

Steve Jobs: "Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty, because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things.”

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/ideas-flow/

Best wishes,

Esko

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi<http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi<http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/> Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi

On 13 Apr 2015, at 03:09, Curt Carlson […] wrote:

David, thanks. Here is what I am trying to sort out. The “narrative” that customers see is a fraction (but critical) of the total “narrative” that needs to be created to develop a sustainable product (for as least awhile). Indeed, there is not a single person who gets the "entire narrative” (e.g., the iPhone team) and it is not required. And narrative by itself is not value. Your definition puts many concepts into one bucket and that doesn’t help me to create new innovations. Your emphasis on the narrative, as I understand it, does help: it is essential and for many products (Nike) it is close to their entire value proposition. Maybe this is clear to everyone else.

The "narrative of innovation" resonates with me. There is no such thing today that is simple, correct, and that people can hold in their heads. One example I posted on my website is the so called Valley of Death. That is completely the wrong narrative!


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: 705a544f9a1ef124c57c409a3b25c39ea4b3c81d<https://www.practiceofinnovation.com/>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: David Nordfors […]
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 3:10 PM
To: C Carlson […]
Cc: Vint Cerf […], Herman Gyr […], "[…]" […]
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

HI Curt – good points
——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]

On Apr 12, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Curt Carlson […] wrote:
David, Thanks—interesting—see below. Best, Curt
It should be fruitful to talk more about the humane part of innovation.
Great.
Every innovation needs a name, so that we can refer to it, and a narrative so that we can relate to it. Otherwise it can’t exist. So it’s pure logics that innovation is the introduction of new shared language. There is nothing to argue about that.
In most cases it takes much more than a new narrative. "The creation of surprising new knowledge and narratives that have sustaining value for society”
I agree.

In MOST CASES innovation is more than an introduction of narrative: New elements of Technology, Business etc.
That said, an innovation is ALWAYS the introduction of new shared language.

I agree with you Curt that innovation is ALWAYS the creation of new value.

That said, the value is established by the narrative.
Example: The value of the Huula Hoop is determined by being a plastic ring you wiggle around parts of your body for entertainment. If the Huula Hoop narrative would have been “Save drowning people by throwing the plastic ring to them” it would have been pretty worthless.

The question is: At this point in time – what is the most value-creating way of understanding innovation?

My point of view: In the 80s, creating the new technology was the bottle-neck. So people concluded that if they could create technology better and faster, then that would lead to more innovation.
It does
Indeed

This meant people could use innovation and technology as synonyms and it wouldn’t make much different in the discussion about the economy. Then, in the 90s, people started to say that ‘we make a lot of technology that never gets out of the lab. Innovation is about business, too!”. So business was being increasingly seen as the bottle-neck for innovation. So in people’s minds, the essence of innovation started to slide from tech to business.
Well maybe. It has always been about both. People are just not good at the value creation part of the process. That is still true (I recently wrote a post about this). Creating the narrative is one part of the process — needs, solution, competition, business model, narrative, production, sales; needs, solution, competition, etc. (repeat and repeat and repeat until done).

Perhaps it’s constructive to talk about “the narrative of innovation”
Back in the 80s and well into the 90s we spoke about “technology policy”
Now it’s more “innovation policy” and it includes business.
I think people will NOT call it “Narrative policy”, but the role of narrative will increase in innovation policy.

Now it’s beginning to go so fast to develop both technology and business infrastructure, we are less limited by that.
Depends on the area. AI is hard, energy is hard, medicine is hard, cyber is hard, robotics is hard, etc.

Yes. I generalized in order to make the point. ๐Ÿ˜‰

People can develop a mind-blowing technology in no time and a single person can start a company with global supply chain, marketing and sales overnight!
Sometimes the second part is true.

Now the primary problem for innovators is to build their story so that people will buy into it and want to be part of it.
That is not what I see. It is developing the product and the business model for products, and yes there is new knowledge and a narrative around that.

Curt – NABC / Business plan is a narrative.
But I agree with you.
I generalized, again – to make the point ๐Ÿ˜‰

That goes for the development team – nowadays they are often a multidisciplinary team and it’s difficult for them to get over the internal language barriers.
That is certainly true — most don’t try that hard or know what to do.

It goes for the market and the customers – you need to catch their attention to start with, and then co-opt them. Introducing new narrative is the bottle neck now.
For some markets (e.g., social media) more than others.

That’s why it’s relevant to see innovation as the introduction of new narrative.
Again, to me it is one of the things you have to do. It is not just any-old-narrative when you are developing a product or something that will be sustainable.
Again – I agree it’s several things. I agree that there are several useful ways to see innovation.
Still, the user scenario /NABC is what I see as the difference between ‘tech’ and ‘innovation'

My Innovation Journalism Fellowship program at Stanford was about that. It targeted journalism is a stakeholder in the innovation ecosystem.
Good.

Their mandate is from the audience/citizens – which makes them an important player for democratic innovation economy.
True.

In a functional innovation system, journalism will interact with other industries, universities and the public sector to expand journalism’s ability to explain how innovation happens, while maintaining journalistic principles. According to these principles, journalism is loyal to the citizens.
That would be an improvement. VERY few MSM folks have any real understanding of value creation and innovation.
True

By empowering citizens in matters of innovation, journalism enables societies to develop innovation economies. Accordingly, this chapter offers:

* An overview of Innovation Journalism and its importance for journalism and modern society;
* A summary of important concepts created as the initiative has developed: ‘attention work,’ and the ‘innovation communication system’
* A discussion on how innovation is dependent on the introduction of new shared language.
* Journalism and the innovation economy: Competitiveness and clusters, journalistic principles and appropriate business models for journalism
* Toward an agenda for academic research on Innovation Journalism;
* The status of innovation journalism as a global initiative, with descriptions of Innovation Journalism initiatives in Stanford, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, the EU, Pakistan and Mexico;
* A view of the potential future of Innovation Journalism.
All great topics.

Allons!

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]

On Apr 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Curt Carlson […] wrote:

You beat me to it!

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: 705a544f9a1ef124c57c409a3b25c39ea4b3c81d<393c129a6c123fbde4426682a933071b28325252>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: Vint Cerf […]
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 11:52 AM
To: Herman Gyr […]
Cc: C Carlson […], David Nordfors […], "[…]" […]
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative

"don't mess with Google…."

๐Ÿ™‚

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Herman Gyr […] wrote:
Indeed – and owned by Google. Combine this with Deep Mind (which Google also owns) and what future do you think they are envisioning and creating for us?

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 12, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Curt Carlson […] wrote:
Team, This is an amazing video of robotic achievement. It will rapidly get smaller and more capable. Best, C

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/M8YjvHYbZ9w?rel=0

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: 705a544f9a1ef124c57c409a3b25c39ea4b3c81d<393c129a6c123fbde4426682a933071b28325252>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/group/i4j2015/.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4j Mountain View 2015" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4j Mountain View 2015" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4j Mountain View 2015" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.


David A Nordfors

Thu Apr 16 2015 13:59:12 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Ivan – interesting formula – can you explain it? Why

Ivan – interesting formula – can you explain it? Why is Trust inversely proportional to Self-orientation?

But Trust – yes. Especially for ‘horizontally’ driven innovation economy. This is the reason, as I see it – perhaps you will agree:

In the innovation economy it’s ‘horizontal’ growth driven by multi-disciplinary multi-stakeholder interaction across silos. Different people come together to do new things that each one of the silos couldn’t do by itself.

The new common narrative is what they share. It makes it possible for them to talk to each other and work together. Since they are so different, it has to be simple language. They have to be able to understand it without being specialists. And the narrative has to be catchy,”want to know language” as journalists call it, because it’s not like people are forced to buy into new narratives.

A narrative describes how people and things relate. It will be successful if the right people choose to have a stake in it, in such a way that they build value together with other stakeholders in the narrative. They should all have an interest in improving it.

So when people ask “Is this me? Do I want to be a part of this?”, they need to trust the narrative. They need to trust that it describes how they relate. They don’t need to trust the other stakeholders in the narrative, necessarily. But they should trust the narrative, or they will feel uncertain about the whole story. A good example of such a narrative can be the description of a market opportunity.

cheers

/D

——————–
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
[…]


Ivan Kaye

Thu Apr 16 2015 17:57:41 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi David

Here is the trust narrative

TRUST = Credibility + Reliability

Hi David

Here is the trust narrative

TRUST = Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy
Self-orientation

T is trust —how much the parties trust each other

C is credibility—has the party been referred to buy a credible source? does he/she make sense? have they done something similar before? Have they got what it takes robe part of the team? Have they the knowledge, education, experience and credentials that you can trust ? Are you authentic ?

Example

you go see a doctor and he prescribes you a green pill with yellow dots and costs a fortune because it will make you feel better …. If he has a good reputation, the relevant qualifications and has been referred by someone you know like and trust – his credibility factor will be high – as a patient , the likelihood up you buying and taking that pill is good.

If you are in a foreign country, and you see a "doctor" on the pavement in a dark alley, dark glasses offering the same pill – you will think twice about taking it!!

The higher the credibility factor – the higher the trust factor

R is reliability—have you built a reputation of reliability? Are you consistent ? Are your words and actions aligned ? Have you got a reputation of someone with a strong integrity? Are you someone who can follow through? Do you under promise and over deliver? Have you been part of an innovative team before? If you have failed many times- that's ok – have you learnt from that experience?

Example

If you have a golf partner that continually doesn't come on time for tee off and is unreliable – can you trust him to be there next week – or are you going to continually have angst whether he will be there next time – his reliability is low – his trust factor will be low .

I is intimacy—how secure or safe are you perceived by your team ? Are you honest? How well do you know them ? Can they trust you to tell you their inner most secrets, ideas , bfo's (blinding flashes of the obvious!) . The higher the intimacy – the higher the trust factor. You know the strengths and weaknesses of that person or team – and you know the value that they can bring! You have done it before with them!

Self in the denominator is Real interesting .

it’s about the selfishness factor

Are we focussed on what we get out of the relationship for ourselves , or what we can contribute for the benefit of the project or person? What is the perception?

If we focus on the other person or project , paying attention to whatever it is that helps them succeed, this will build trust and be a strong base for a strong relationships based on trust.

High C and R and I builds trust:

High S destroys trust

Capability and Reliability are largely quantifiable – calculated from the head

Intimacy and self orientation is largely based on gut, instinct, chemistry and perception – calculated from the heart – "can I collaborate with you , work with and be frank with you or are you in it for yourself without regard for me.

Do I have a sense that the person cares about me"

David, Innovation thrives on teams working together and developing strong relationships with each other. They are not built on one off transactions – they are built on long term commitments for the benefit of each other and for those around them. At the heart of this relationship is trust .

Best
Ivan

Sent from my iPhone
Ivan Kaye
BSI
0413339888


David Nordfors

Thu Apr 16 2015 18:03:15 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Good points, Ivan ๐Ÿ™‚

Good points, Ivan ๐Ÿ™‚


Michael Kende

Fri Apr 17 2015 03:03:49 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hello,
I thought this was an interesting article, to take a

Hello,
I thought this was an interesting article, to take a moment to reflect on the amazing progress underlying many of the innovations today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/04/16/happy-birthday-to-moores-law/
Michael

PS I am doing a bit of research now on a short piece to mark another upcoming anniversary – the decommissioning of the NSFNET on April 30 1995 – maybe not as profound as Moore’s law, but an important milestone nonetheless.


Ivan Kaye

Fri Apr 17 2015 03:59:17 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Michael… Great article – an article with a similar theme

Michael… Great article – an article with a similar theme
http://bsivc.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/technology-disruption-will-cause.html?m=1
By Vivek Wadwha …..
Makes the next 50 years an exciting time to be!
(By the way , Vivek is in the Valley and would be an awesome contributor to the group.
Have a great weekend (it's Friday evening in Oz!)
Best
Ivan

Sent from my iPhone
Ivan Kaye
BSI
0413339888


Curt Carlson

Fri Apr 17 2015 14:05:20 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Nice—and fun.

Would empathy be better than intimacy (it is a

Nice—and fun.

Would empathy be better than intimacy (it is a complicated word)?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Ivan Kaye

Sun Apr 19 2015 08:45:53 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Soon there will be no need for barmen!

https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/videos/10153363635194369/
Sent

Soon there will be no need for barmen!

https://www.facebook.com/cnbc/videos/10153363635194369/
Sent from my iPhone
Ivan Kaye
BSI
0413339888


Bobby Sain

Sun Apr 19 2015 11:22:38 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Highlighting the availability of/and the opportunity to hire machine labor

Highlighting the availability of/and the opportunity to hire machine labor while providing the opportunity to also hire human labor is something we should all be passionate about. Here is another example of a bot that will soon replace warehouse workers (a significant portion of the labor force): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gy5tYVR-28

Bobby Sain
(704)740-5817
@bobbysain

This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. Bobby Sain does not guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, interceptions or interference.


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 19 2015 11:46:22 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear Team,
I just posted a new item on my website

Dear Team,
I just posted a new item on my website to follow up with an example from Herman on the conversation David and I had about innovation. All thoughts are appreciated.
https://www.practiceofinnovation.com
Best,
Curt

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 19 2015 12:42:59 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thanks. There are only a few more steps here, including

Thanks. There are only a few more steps here, including real-time manufacturing to get rid of most of the warehouse and shipping, and most people will be out of this segment.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Monique Morrow (mmorrow)

Sun Apr 19 2015 22:13:24 GMT-0400 (EDT)

"Innovation is the creation and delivery of surprising new knowledge

"Innovation is the creation and delivery of surprising new knowledge that has sustainable value for society."

Curt what about environments that are conducive to "innovation?" double clicking and defining "creative work" and what does that look like?

Doing new things with old things? Looks at Solving for Fermat's Last Theorem as an example [Andrew Wiles' journey]

Take a look at Bob Sutton's Work Matters Page for more:

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/

Thanks always!

MM

________________________________


Curt Carlson

Sun Apr 19 2015 23:26:40 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear MM,
Thanks. See below in red for some thoughts.
Best,
C

"Innovation is

Dear MM,
Thanks. See below in red for some thoughts.
Best,
C

"Innovation is the creation and delivery of surprising new knowledge that has sustainable value for society."

The other definition I use for business types is:

"The creation and delivery of new customer value in the marketplace with a sustainable business model."

The point that I have added is "sustainable business model." (At least for some time – I have never found anyone else who has emphasized that but I think it is essential – maybe someone here has)

Curt what about environments that are conducive to "innovation?" double clicking and defining "creative work" and what does that look like?

That is a big question-you should say more about what you are interested in. As Sutton describes many companies kill what made them successful.

Doing new things with old things?

That is innovation if it creates new knowledge and is to some degree sustainable in the marketplace (society).

Looks at Solving for Fermat's Last Theorem as an example [Andrew Wiles' journey]

For sure that works as a major innovation – it is leading to all kinds of practical and other pure mathematical results.

Take a look at Bob Sutton's Work Matters Page for more:

Most companies do have a hard time scaling. Jobs did not. Microsoft does. I will try and say something about this when I have a bit more time.

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/

PS I believe in Bob's No Asshole Rule. My way of saying it is: "Would you swim in a swimming pool with three turds in it? No, how about two? No, how about one?" Now not everyone sees everyone else the same way, but you get the idea.

Thanks always!

MM

________________________________
From: Curt Carlson [[…]]

Dear Team,
I just posted a new item on my website to follow up with an example from Herman on the conversation David and I had about innovation. All thoughts are appreciated.
https://www.practiceofinnovation.com
Best,
Curt

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Stephen Denning

Mon Apr 20 2015 02:44:55 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi Curt

Thanks for the interesting post. Love the Bach jugglers.

I

Hi Curt

Thanks for the interesting post. Love the Bach jugglers.

I am wondering whether it useful to draw a distinction between
*inventions*—i.e.
interesting new ideas that involve new knowledge—and *innovations*—i.e. the
transformation of new ideas into marketable products or services that add
value to society.

If we draw this distinction, we might say that the Bach jugglers initially
came up with invention, but not yet an innovation. Then they turned it into
a successful musical toy, selling millions of units, i.e. an innovation.

Similarly, Andrew Wiles came up with an invention in his solution to
Fermat's Last Theorem, while others may be turning it into an innovation.

By failing to draw this distinction, The New Yorker for instance has
repeatedly got itself into a muddle, and missed the whole subject of
innovation, as I discussed here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/05/19/the-new-yorkers-epic-fail-on-innovation/

Do you think it would be useful to draw this distinction?

Steve Denning
Forbes blog: http://blogs.forbes.com/stevedenning/
The Leader's Guide to Radical Management
http://www.stevedenning.com/Books/radical-management.aspx
Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevedenning
<http://stevedenning.typepad.com/steve_denning/>
Email: […]
Web: http://stevedenning.com

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Curt Carlson <
[…] wrote:


Esko Kilpi

Fri Apr 24 2015 07:24:35 GMT-0400 (EDT)

The terms “Knowledge Worker” and “Knowledge Society” are around fifty

The terms “Knowledge Worker” and “Knowledge Society” are around fifty years old.

Although the concepts and the narrative have now been around for a long time, it seems that the implications for individuals are not at all clear. What is quite evident is that the emerging society is different in many ways from the industrial society. We just don’t fully know in what way. There are some things we do know about knowledge work, creative work we do in interaction. Effective skills are always specialised, as regards both, successful companies and effective people. This means that highly knowledge-based companies are always, by definition, only a partial answer to the opportunities available:

https://medium.com/@EskoKilpi/to-be-competitive-is-to-be-selfishly-cooperative-c68ede613b91 <5b2602cf490e62a9bb0f45b0f77deafaa20a04b4>

Best wishes,

Esko

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi <http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi


Robin Chase

Fri Apr 24 2015 10:27:08 GMT-0400 (EDT)

+1 Esko

Robin

Pre-order your copy of *Peers Inc* today at Amazon
<

+1 Esko

Robin

Pre-order your copy of *Peers Inc* today at Amazon
<http://www.amazon.com/Peers-Inc-Collaborative-Creating-Prosperity/dp/1610395549>
, Barnes&Noble
<http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/peers-inc-robin-chase/1120932248?ean=9781610395540>
, Indie bookstores <http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781610395540>
How People & Platforms are Inventing the Collaborative Economy &
Reinventing Capitalism

Post Importer