Tag Archives: Science

Who gets the credit: the innovator or the implementer?

Who should get the credit? The person to came up with the idea? Or the person to did something with it?

I’m with the implementers. Thomas Edison might be remembered for the lightbulb, but Samuel Insull‘s hard work enabled everyone to have one in their homes. We also forget that it wasn’t even Edison who invented electric light (though you could argue that he perfected it). Edison was one of many who happened to have the same good idea. Insull changed society forever.

Innovation [2010-05-25]

Another week and another collection of interesting ideas from around the internet.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

  • Innovation and R&D [The Economist]
    The Economist provides two interactive visualisations that show the future of innovation taking shape. We can see a strong link between the number of international patents that a country is granted and the amount that it spends on research and development. A 2007 snapshot shows this clearly, and also that America and Japan led the pack.
  • McLaren wins the innovation race [timkastelle.org]
    McLaren shows us how to leverage lessons learnt in Formula 1 in other domains, such as air traffic control and health care, making them the masters of extending current competencies into new fields.
  • The creative process gone wrong [Bob Sutton]
    It seems that the very tools we often use to manage the creative, innovation process can be the source of the process’s biggest problems.
  • What if the very theory that underlies why we need patents is wrong? [techdirt]
    Our current patent system was designed for an earlier, gentler age. A number of pundits are – quite rightly – pointing out that the system is tremendously obsolete in terms of actually promoting the progress, and is set up in a way that favors a concept of innovation and invention that may not be how the world actually works today.

Complexity isn’t (at least in enterprise IT)

There’s a lot of talk these days about complexity in enterprise IT. The heterogeneous solutions we’re building today seem more complex than the monolithic solutions of the past. But are they really? I’ll grant you that a lot of what is being built at the moment is complicated. Complex though? I don’t think so. The problem is that we’re building new things in old ways when we need to be building new things in new ways.

I’ve always used a simple rule of thumb when thinking about complexity. Some folk like to get fancy with two and three dimensional models that enable us to ascribe degrees of complexity to problems. While I find these models interesting, my focus has always been on how do I solve the problem in front of me. What is the insight that will make the hard easy? For me, one simple distinction seems to provide the information I need. Is a solution complex? Or is it complicated?

Something is complicated if the model we use to understand the problem requires patches, exceptions to make it work. The model might be simple and well understood, but we’re forced to patch the model for it to succeed when confronted by the real world; we’re adding epicycles. It’s not a complex system, but it is complicated.

Adding epicycles didn't manage to keep the earth at the centre of the universe
Adding epicycles didn't manage to keep the earth at the centre of the universe

On the other hand, something is complex if it’s difficult to develop a consistent model for the problem. While we might have a well understood model, it’s definitely not simple, requiring a great deal of academic and tacit knowledge to understand. There’s no epicycles, but there are a large number of variables involved, and their interactions are often non-linear.

While this binary separation might not be strictly true (the complicated can sometimes be complex), I find that the truly complex problems are rare enough that the rule of thumb is useful most of the time. After all, that’s what a rule of thumb is. The few times that it breaks down, experience comes to the rescue.

Distinguishing between the complex and the complicated is not hard; just look for the epicycles. Planning engines – such as material planning or crew scheduling – are a good example of a complex solutions. Business processes management is a good example of a complicated solution. Psi calculus – the model at the heart of a modern BPM engine – is well understood and BPM engines work as described. However, managing business exceptions is a mess as support for them is tacked on rather than an inherent part of the model. Smashing together psi calculus, transactions and number of other models has resulted in epicycles.

Most of the problems we’re seeing in enterprise IT are complicated, but not complex. Take the current efforts to create IT estates integrating SaaS and public cloud with more traditional enterprise IT tools, such as on-premesis applications and BPO. Conventional approaches to understanding and planning IT estates are creaking at the seems. The model – the enterprise integration patterns – which we’ve used for so long is well understood, but it’s creaking at the seams as we bolt on more epicycles to cope with exceptions as they arise.

Dr. Khee Pang
Dr. Khee Pang

A great piece of advice from a former lecturer of mine always comes to mind in situations like this. As I’ve mentioned before:

If you don’t like a problem, then change it.
KK Pang

Our solution is complicated because we’re trying to solve the wrong problem. We need to change it.

The problem with BPM is that business exceptions are not exceptional, but are simply alternative ways of achieving the same goals. To resolve the epicycles we need to shift the problems centre of gravity, moving the earth from the centre of the universe to a more stable orbit. If business exceptions are not exceptional, then we should simply consider them as different business scenarios, and use a scenario based approach to capturing business processes. The epicycles then melt away.

I think we can use a similar approach to help us with the challenges we’re seeing in today’s IT estates, the same challenges which are trigger some of the discussion on complexity. The current approach to planning and provisioning IT is data centric; most applications are, after all, just large data management engines. This data-centric approach is forcing us to create epicycles as we attempt to integrate SaaS, cloud, and a whole raft of new tools and techniques. The solution is to move from a data-centric approach, to decision-centric approach. But that’s a different blog post.

Innovation [2010-02-17]

Another week and another collection of interesting ideas from around the internet.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

  • An innovation report card [The Conference Board of Canada]
    Countries with the highest overall scores not only spend more on science and technology but also have policies that drive innovation supply and demand.
  • Innovation: what’s your score? [McKinsey & Company: What Matters]
    Can companies measure the impact of their innovation activities? Can they benchmark their performance on innovation against that of their peers? Can the long-term effects of innovation strategies be tracked systematically? Yes, yes, and yes. In fact, not only can companies objectively assess innovation; we believe they must. Only then will they know how to select the right strategies and execute them well.
  • The Original Futurama: The Legacy of the 1939 World’s Fair [Popular Mechanics]
    Seventy years after the closing of the 1939 New York World’s Fair, The Daily Show writer Elliott Kalan looks back at its past vision of the World of Tomorrow.
  • Why private companies are more innovative [BusinessWeek: NEXT]
    Do privately held companies have an edge when it comes to long-term innovation? At least some of them seem to. Recently, Al Gore—former Vice-President and Senator and now Nobel Prize-winning environmental evangelist—declared S.C. Johnson & Son one of the most sustainable companies in the world.

Is “agile enterprise IT” an oxymoron?

Have we managed to design agility out of enterprise IT? Are the two now incompatible? Our decision to measure IT purely in terms of cost (ROI) or stability (SLAs) means that we have put aside other desirable characteristics like responsiveness, making our IT estates more like the lumbering airships of the 1920s. While efficient and reliable (once we got the hydrogen out of them), they are neither exciting or responsive to the business. The business ends up going elsewhere for their thrills. What to do?

LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin
LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin

An interesting post on jugaad over at the Capgemini CTO blog got me thinking. The tension between the managed chaos that jugaad seems to represent and the stability we strive for in IT seems to nicely capture the current tensions between business and IT. Business finds that opportunities are blinking in and out of existence faster than ever before, providing dramatically reduced windows of opportunity leaving IT departments unable to respond in time, prompting the business to look outside the organisation for solutions.

The first rule of CIOs is “you only have a seat at the strategy table if you’re keeping the lights on”. The pressure is on to keep the transactions flowing, and we spend a lot of time and money (usually the vast majority of our budget) ensuring that transactions do indeed flow. We often complain that our entire focus seems to be on cost and operations, when there is so much more we can bring to the leadership team. We forget that all departments labour under a similar rule, and all these rules are really just localised versions of a single overarching rule: the first rule of business, which is to be in business (i.e. remain solvent). Sales needs to sell, manufacturing needs to manufacture, … By devoting so much of our energy on cost and stability, we seems to have dug ourselves into a bit of a hole.

There’s another rule that I like to quote from time-to-time: management is not the art of making the perfect decision, but making a timely decision and then making it work. This seems to be something we’ve forgotten in the West, and particularly in IT. Perfection is an unattainable ideal in the real world, and agility requires a little chaos/instability. What’s interesting about jugaad is the concept’s ability to embrace the chaos required to succeed when resource constraints prevent you for using the perfect (or even simply the best) solution.

Vickers F.B. 5 Gunbus
Vickers F.B.5. Gunbus

Consider a fighter plane. The other day I was watching a documentary on the history of aircraft which showed how the evolution of fighters is a progression from stability to instability The first fighters (and we’re talking the start of WWI here–all fabric and glue) were designed to float above the battlefield where the pilots could shoot down at soldiers, or even lob bombs at them. They were designed to be very stable, so stable that the pilot could ignore the controls for a while and the plane would fly itself. Or you could shoot out most of the control surfaces and still land safely. (Sounds a bit like a modern, bullet proof, IT application, eh?)

The Red Baron: NAME
The Red Baron: Manfred von Richthofen

The problem with these planes is that they are very stable. It’s hard to make them turn and dance about, and this makes them easy to shoot down. They needed to be more agile, harder to shoot down, and the solution was to make them less stable. The result, by the end of WWI, was the fairly unstable tri-planes we associate with the Red Baron. Yes, this made them harder to fly, and even harder to land, but it also made them harder to hit.

Wizz forward to the modern day, and we find that all modern fighters are unstable by design. They’re so unstable that they’re unflyable without modern fly-by-wire systems. Forget about landing: you couldn’t even get them off the ground without their fancy control systems. The governance of the fly-by-wire systems lets the pilot control the uncontrollable.

The problem with modern IT is that it is too stable. Not the parts, the individual applications, but the IT estate as a whole. We’ve designed agility out of it, focusing on creating a stable and efficient platform for lobbing bombs onto the enemy below. This is great is the landscape below us doesn’t change, and the enemy promises not to move or shoot back, but not so good in today’s rapidly changing business environment. We need to be able to rapidly turn and dance about, both to dodge bullets and pounce on opportunities. We need some instability as instability means that we’re poised for change.

Jugaad points out that we need to allow in a bit of chaos if we want to bring the agility back in. The chaos jugaad provides is the instability we need. This will require us to update our governance processes, evolving them beyond simply being a tool to stop the bad happening, transforming governance into a tool for harvesting the jugaad where it occurs. After all, the role of enterprise IT is to capture good ideas and automate them, allowing them to be leveraged across the entire enterprise.

Managing chaos has become something of a science in the aircraft world. Tools like Energy-Maneuverability theory are used during aircraft design to make informed tradeoffs between weight, weapons load, amount of wing (i.e. ability to turn), and so on. This goes well beyond most efforts to map and score business processes, which is inherently a static pieces/parts and cost driven approach. Our focus should be on using different technologies and delivery approaches to modify how our IT estate responds to business change; optimising our IT estate’s dynamic, change-driven characteristics as well as its cost-driven static characteristics.

This might be the root of some of the problems we’re seeing between business and IT. IT’s tendency to measure value in terms of cost and/or stability leads us to create IT estates optimised for a static environment, which are at odds with the dynamic nature of the modern business environment. We should be focusing on the overall dynamic business performance of the IT estate, its energy-maneuverability profile.

Innovation and the art of random

A little while ago I was invited to speak at an event, InnoFuture, which, for a mixture of reasons, didn’t end up happening. The theme for the event was Ahead of the trends — the random effect. My take on it was that innovation is not random, it’s just happening faster than you can process, and that ideas are commoditized making synthesis, the creation of new solutions to old problems, what drives innovation. I was pretty happy with the outline I put together for my talk, that I ended up reusing the content and breaking it into three blog posts, rather than letting it go to waste.

Innovation seems to be the topic of the day. Everyone seems to want some, thinking that it’s the secret sauce which will help them (or their company) bubble to the top of the heap. The self help and consulting communities have responded in force, trying to bottle lightening or package the silver bullet (whichever metaphor you prefer).

It was in this environment that I was quite taken by the topic of a recent InnoFuture event when I was asked to speak.

Ahead of trends — the random effect.
When a concept becomes a trend, you are a not the leader. How to tap into valuable ideas for products, services and communication before they are seen as trends, when they are just … random? Albert Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Let’s open the doors and let the imagination in for it seems that in the current crisis, the right brain is winning and we may be rationalized to death before things get better.

I’ve never seen the random effect, though I have been delightfully surprised when something unexpected pops up. Having been involved in a bunch of companies and projects that, I’m told, where innovative, I’ve always thought innovation was not so much random, as the result of obliquity. What makes it seem random is the simple fact that your are not aware of the intervening steps from interesting problem through to novel solution.

I figured I’d mash together a few ideas that capture this thought, and provide some (hopefully) sage advice based on what I do to deal with random. I ended up selecting:

  • John Boyd on why rapidly changing environments are confusing,
  • Peter Drucker‘s insight that insight (the tacit application of knowledge) is not a transferable good,
  • the struggle for fluency that we all go through as we learn to read,
  • John Boyd (again, but then he had a lot of good ideas) on the need for synthesis,
  • KK Pang (and old lecturer of mine) on the need to view problems from multiple contexts,
  • the need to follow a consistent theme of interest as the only tractable way of finding interesting problems to solve, and
  • my own experiences in leveraging a network of like and dissimilar minds as a way of effectivly out-sourcing analysis.

The result was called Of snow mobiles and childhood readers: why random isn’t, and how to make it work for you. I ended up having far to much content to fill my twenty minute slot, so it’s probably for the better that the event didn’t go ahead, as it would have taken a lot of time to cut it down.

Given that I had a fairly well developed outline, I decided to make it into a series of blog posts (plus my slides these days don’t have a lot of text on them, so if I just dropped the slides online they wouldn’t make any sense). The blog posts ended up breaking down this way:

  1. Innovation should not be the race for the new-new thing.
    Points out that innovation only seems random, unexpected, as you don’t see the intervening steps between a problem and new solution, and that innovation is the result of many small commoditized steps. This ties into one of my earlier posts of dealing with the speed of change.
  2. The role of snowmobiles in innovation.
    Argues that ideas are a common commodity, and that the real challenge with innovation is synthesis rather than ideation.
  3. Childhood readers and the art of random.
    Argues that the key to innovation is to find interesting problems to solve, and suggests that the best approach is to be fluent in a range of domains (sectors, geographies, activities, …) to provide a broader perspective, focus on a line of inquiry to provide some structure, and build a network of people with complimentary interests, providing you with the time, space and opportunity to focus on synthesis.

I expect that these are more productive if taken as a whole, rather than individual posts.

If you look at the path I’ve charted over my career then this is the approach I’ve taken, and my topic of choice is how people communicate and decide as a group, leading me to John Boyd, Cicero, human-computer interaction, agent technology, biology (my thesis was mathematically modelling nerves in a cat), and so on.

I still have the slides, so feel free to contact me it you’re interested in my presenting all or part of this topic.

Innovation [2009-12-14]

Another week and another collection of interesting ideas from around the internet.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

Innovation [2009-11-30]

Another week and another collection of interesting ideas from around the internet.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

  • Patent Volume Isn’t the Best Innovation Gauge [BusinessWeek: Innovate]
    Patent volume isn’t necessarily a valid proxy for innovation. A study by the Patent Board, an intellectual-property consultancy, shows there are other—and better—ways to quantify innovation. Ranked by sheer volume, Honda Motor is No. 1, with 54. That’s almost twice second-place Panasonic, which has 28. Ranked by other metrics, though, Honda isn’t a leader.
  • The Downside of Seeking Common Ground [strategy+business]
    People’s tendency to find common ground in conversation by focusing on what’s familiar can stifle the most innovative thinkers.
  • Is America Losing Its Mojo? [Newsweek]
    Innovation is as American as baseball and apple pie. But some traditions can’t be trademarked.
  • Innovation relies on synthesis [Innovate on Purpose]
    We often talk about the importance of combining disparate skills or capabilities when innovating, or holding two diametrically opposing ideas and finding the happy medium. What should be obvious is that one of the most important skills from an innovation perspective is the act and insight of synthesis.

Innovation [2009-11-16]

Another week and another collection of interesting ideas from around the internet.

As always, thoughts and/or comments are greatly appreciated.

  • Warren Buffett’s bet against innovation [BusinessWeek: Innovate]
    In proclaiming an “all-in wager on the economic future of the United States, Warren Buffett just paid $44 billion for a 19th century technology platform, a railroad, that carries 20th century goods—coal, agriculture, imports from Asia, petroleum. This is a vision of an America mired in the past and in economic and political decline. And Buffett just might be right. He has a great track record betting against innovation.
  • Embracing Innovation: a new methodology for feature film production in Australia [Centre for Screen Business]
    Do too many Australian films fall into a budgetary ‘no-man’s land’ – not big enough to compete with the US studios, yet too big to stand a chance of commercial viability in a market flooded with independent films? Robert Connolly’s recommendations provide us with valuable grist for the mill as we, in the IT industry, work our way through the current evolutionary phase our industry is going through, driven by the shift from large, on premises applications to a future increasingly dominated by cloud solutions. His approach to the problem is also an excellent model of how to engage with the wholesale transformation of an industry.
  • 10 examples of minimum viable products [Venture Hacks]
    Brilliant products are rarely the result of brilliant ideas. Most products start small, as minimum viable products, and then grow as the customers and developers work together to learn what the product should be.
  • What do the crowds know about innovation? [Innovate on Purpose]
    Companies use different strategies and techniques for crowdsourcing ideas. All of these approaches help gather ideas from the crowd, but they also serve as trend spotting and public relations opportunities as well, and some companies might be more interested in these secondary effects. As Henry Ford pointed out, “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”