The Myths of Innovation

cgjherr writes "Ah, the technology history book, normally I'm not a fan. The writing is aloof and dry. The topics are vague, the history misinterpreted, and the lessons presented too vague to be applicable. And don't get me started on the illustrations, which are all too often pyramids with the authors perched at the top looking down on the lowly reader at the base. Thankfully, this book, "the myths of innovation" breaks all of these rules. It's an engaging, fun and quick read. The history is interesting, and the lessons presented are practical. I particularly like the author's tone. It's witty and light. Which makes this a very fast read, one that leaves you wanting even more by the end." Read below for the rest of Jack's review.

The Myths of Innovation
author	Scott Berkun
pages	176
publisher	O'Reilly
rating	Excellent
reviewer	Jack Herrington
ISBN	0596527055
summary	The history of innovation with lessons learned

The myths of innovation is about how innovation happens in the real world in companies, universities and garages around the company. The first two chapters really draw the reader in by showing the twin fallacies of the epiphany moment and the historically clean line of innovation. Learning that innovation doesn't just come as a flash, and that lots of successes have come out of copious failure encourages us to try to innovate, and to keep trying even when we believe we have failed.

This short book (147 pages of content) is presented in ten short chapters. The first two show you how anyone can be an innovator. You can think of those as the debunking chapters. The third chapter is where the author starts helping you to build some techniques to innovate. He presents how there are some reasonable methods to spur innovation and shows examples from Apple, Google, Edison, Craiglist and more.

In chapter four he shows how to overcome peoples fears of innovation and overcome the common problems with the adoption of new technologies. Chapter five, "the lone innovator", debunks the legend of, well, the lone innovator. It sounds good, and plays into our noble story of the hero, but it's not common in reality. Chapter six talks about ideas and surveys where innovators have found the ideas that they start out with. Of course, where you start is often not where you end but that's ok, since innovation is a lot more about failure than it is about success.

Chapter seven covers something I think most of us can relate to, which is that managers aren't often the innovators. Chapter eight talks about how we believe that the "best ideas always win" but that's least often the case. This sounds pessimistic, but it's actually an interesting study in how the biggest product with the most feature isn't always the best for the customer. Chapter nine, "problems and solutions", talks about framing problems to constrain the creativity and innovation. The final chapter, "innovation is always good", is at the same time the most amusing and disturbing. It covers innovations from the automobile to DDT and presents that innovation, no matter what, is always good. Agree or disagree the points are well presented.

As I say I really enjoyed this book. It's an easy read that is hard to put down. What's more it's really motivating. After reading this book you will want to dig right back into those crazy ideas lurking around in the back of your mind and give them another shot. With this book, you will have a few more tools at your disposal to turn your ideas into reality.

---

You can purchase The Myths of Innovation from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Expensive

Sounds like a cool book, but at over $18 too expensive - did we really need a hardcover?

I'll wait and hope it comes around to Safari (it's an O'Reilly book).

No, I won't.

After reading this book you will want to dig right back into those crazy ideas lurking around in the back of your mind and give them another shot.

No, I won't. Remember...

Chapter five, "the lone innovator", debunks the legend of, well, the lone innovator. It sounds good, and plays into our noble story of the hero, but it's not common in reality.

...and...

Chapter eight talks about how we believe that the "best ideas always win" but that's least often the case.

Re:They're all LONE innovators

The execution of an invention might be done in the group, but the innovation is ALWAYS A SINGLE IDEA IN A SINGLE PERSON

Yes and no. Innovative ideas tend to happen inside environments that are conductive to them. i.e. I may come up with a brilliant idea, but that's only after having bounced 50 related ideas off my coworkers. For some types of innovation, you may even need access to equipment and tools before you can develop the idea in the first place.

As for execution, is an idea really innovative if you can't execute it? The best someone can do in that situation is write a paper and hope someone else spends the resources. To effectively execute an idea, you pretty much always need infrastructure to support its development. The "lone innovator" tends to lack that infrastructure, and is thus usually unsuccessful in his attempts to execute.

Re:They're all LONE innovators

Execution isn't innovation, anymore than marketing is

See, I have to disagree. Take the Nintendo Wii as an example. Motion sensors exist in the PS3. They exist in Gameboy games. They exist in PC Joy[sticks|pads]. So why is the Wii so innovative?

The answer lies in its execution. It's a balls-to-the-wall embracing of an immature technology because someone, somewhere had the idea that the market was ready for it. Once the initial concept was sketched out, you can bet that dozens of ideas were tossed around to come up with the Wii Remote we see today. Some of it was driven by necessity (e.g. "We need to support classic games, so what if we made it an NES controller when turned sideways?") and some of it was probably driven by thoughts about how to utilize the ideas already developed. (e.g. "We added the IR to deal with the dead reckoning drift, but what if we also used it as a mouse cursor?") The resulting package is highly innovative, even if the individual ideas are not. (Or at least, "mildly" innovative.)

Innovation simply doesn't develop in a vacuum. :-)

Defeats/Prevents the purpose...

Isn't the whole point of innovation to come up with some new idea. Reading a book about how to innovate may give assistance in helping to broaden your ability to "Think outside the box". The title leads me to believe that I will become an innovator just by mimicking someone else.

I truly believe inventors or true innovators are not made but born. Anyone can learn to do something but only people with a knack or talent will do it well.

 

Evolution or Intelligent Design?

That's what it comes down to. Do ideas evolve and become something new, over time, or are they something that spontaneously appear?

It's not about mimicking someone, but about preferring to stand on the shoulders of giants -- even if said giants are just other people standing on other shoulders. Innovation does involve something new being added. It is also not merely adding something for the sake of adding something - it can't be "Embrace and Extend". What was there before has to have a definite, identifiable, significant limitation or flaw and the new solution has to have a definite, identifiable, significant remedy that is genuinely unique and quite possibly inspired.

There is almost nothing in the world that didn't have a predecessor. Modern writing evolved from early phonetic syllaberies which evolved from symbols representing words/ideas which evolved from pictures representing entire scenes/concepts. Each stage came from something older, but each stage required a truly amazing intellectual leap.

Now, I personally draw a distinction between innovation and invention. To me, "invention" can only really refer to the first step in any such chain. All other steps are innovative, but they are not inventive. To me, an invention can have no true precursor. There may be something that an inventor uses as a source of inspiration, some personal Muse, but the source cannot be a true predecessor. The most it can be is inspiration.

Inventions, by my definition, are extremely rare, and are almost certainly invented by individuals. Innovations, by definition, are the work of not only the innovator(s) but all predecessors as well. As such, they are by definition not the work of individuals.

Also by my definition, inventors are very much a breed apart. The way most people think precludes them from ever inventing anything - they simply cannot imagine something from scratch, they can only imagine in derivative terms. Nothing wrong with that, and for most of life it is infinitely preferable. To think totally outside the box, totally in non-derivative terms, requires a brain that has some combination of higher-functioning autism, schizo-effective disorder and borderline personality disorder, and is yet functional enough in the real world to do anything meaningful.

Inventors are almost never successful, rarely have more than one true invention in their entire life, and historically have either descended further into madness, died young as a result of that illness, and/or died in abject poverty as a result of that illness. These days, you will most likely find true inventors living homeless on the streets, suffering from alcoholism and terrible ill-health. They will not be living in the condos of Silicon Valley, sipping champagne for breakfast. The reason there are more artistic inventors than technological inventors is that the homeless can usually scrounge chalk or paints far more easily than they can chip fabrication plants.

Countries that tend to provide better services for those who can barely function in life are frequently cited for having an extraordinary number of true inventors. This isn't because they really have more, it's because their inventors are more likely to live long enough and have the means to circulate their ideas. Countries known to provide only limited or non-existent help are known for their innovators (who are often world-class) but almost never for true invention. Generally, no country can afford to fund both inventors and innovators, and almost nobody tries.

Re:Defeats/Prevents the purpose...

Isn't the whole point of innovation to come up with some new idea.

Reminds me of a story. Someone once approached Frank Herbert and said that they had an idea, and if he would write a book, they'd share the profits with him.

He laughed at the person, because it is not the ideas that he was lacking in - it was the time and effort of executing those ideas that was hard.

Similarly, ideas are dime a dozen. Even *good* ideas are easy to find. Don't believe me? Just work on an area for a few months and you'll find yourself coming up with unique solutions and new ideas to solve existing problems that you (or people known to you) face.

On that note, cultures and environments that encourage innovation by letting folks come up with and work on new ideas will always succeed. I do not know about geniuses, but I have seen that even the most mediocre, average person can come up with fantastic ideas under the right circumstances and under the right environment (and the right tutelage).

There is nothing wrong in mimicking something else - if you can do something better than someone else can, then by all means go ahead. It is the end result that matters, not the uniqueness of the idea.

Ideas are worthless if you can't do something with them.

As anyone employed by a company can tell you

the best ideas come from senior managers. You just have to make them think they came up with it.

A really nice book on the evolution of our tech

I read this back in 86, a year after it was published in 85. Recently it was republished with a new afterword by the author. So now it's "retro history" but still great if you want to learn about the people behind a bunch of the technology :

http://www.amazon.com/Tools-Thought-History-Mind-E xpanding-Technology/dp/0262681153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/ 002-1089548-0663244?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179948333 &sr=8-2 [amazon.com]

Sound's fab

It's witty and light. Which makes this a very fast read, one that leaves you wanting even more by the end

So basically it's like something someone told you quickly at the pub and you'll want to buy a decent book to find out anything substantial? Might give that a miss.

TWW

First innovative post

No comment, I am too busy patenting this post.

Ah, the Slashdot review

Ah, the Slashdot review. Normally it is well written. The first sentence isn't misleading. The reviewer gets straight to the point. There is no confusing turnabout within the first paragraph. But this is not that review.

Not enough monkeys

"Chapter five, "the lone innovator", debunks the legend of, well, the lone innovator. It sounds good, and plays into our noble story of the hero, but it's not common in reality."

In my experience each and every innovation can trace its roots back to one key insight in the mind of one person. The group can help, support, enhance and develop that insight, but without it and that key individual - there is nothing.

It doesn't matter how many monkeys you have, you're still not producing Shakespeare.

What is this book about?

The reviewer starts off talking about books on the history of technology - but the impression I took away from the review is that "Myths of Innovation" isn't a history book, but a self help/motivation book that uses historical anecdotes and case studies to support it's conclusions. A bit of apples and oranges really.

Already skeptical...

If he lists DDT as a 'bad innovation', I have my doubts about the credibility of the book. DDT has been demonized as some sort of supertoxin, which it most definitely is not. Properly used, it is a very effective and safe pesticide, especially when non-bug species are involved. Most of the studies that lambasted DDT turned out to have terribly flawed protocols and, at the same time, there are countless documented examples of the good it has done. Mind you, as a pesticide, you wouldn't want to spray it recklessly... well, duh, that describes EVERY pesticide! Eggshell thinning? Almost certainly a myth. Cancer in humans? Nope, no evidence of that. Destroyed biota? Uh-uh, didn't happen.

Perhaps the author merely pulled DDT as an example out of the air, but that would reflect poorly on his skills as well.

Best ideas always win?

It's a pretty well-worn complaint that the better technologies often lose out, but innovators often seem to be at a loss about how to win in situations where they're up against an entrenched competitor with an inferior product but the existing relationship. I read on a blog somewhere the story of how Sun got it's early business away from the big guys of the day like Apollo ... here's one such link: http://fridayreflections.typepad.com/friday_reflec tions/2007/05/persistence_pay.html [typepad.com]

The consensus there seemed to be that sheer bloody minded persistence is the key ingredient to getting something innovative adopted. In other words, "Fall down seven times, get up eight times". Sounds too simple to be true ... but I'm sure there's a million other stories like that.

grammar

"Ah, the technology history book, normally I'm not a fan. The writing is aloof and dry. The topics are vague, the history misinterpreted, and the lessons presented to vague to be applicable."

Ah, the poor mis-used "to" - always getting stuck in for the Johnny-come-never "too" ... learn to communicate, please.

"...presented TOO vague to be applicable."

Saw the Author's Presentation at ETech

And wasn't very impressed. A few interesting historical tidbits, but nothing terribly useful.

A good history of technology -- free download

For a good, readable, non-boring history of technology, read Andy Kessler's "How We Got Here." It's available as a free PDF download at http://akessler.blogs.com/andy_kessler/2005/04/hwg h.html [blogs.com].

Kessler is a former electrical engineer who now heads a hedge fund. Along the way he has written several books on technology and Wall Street. This book starts with Blaise Pascal and ends up in the modern electronic stock market, with stops along the way at the steam engine, cannon building, railroads, the transistor, and gigabit fiber. His writing style is conversational and he does an excellent job of relating innovation to market forces and military tech. Along the way he drops in some fascinating tidbits of information--for instance, did you know that Reuters started out as a service to investors that used carrier pigeons to relay stock prices between Aachen and Brussels? By beating messengers on horseback, traders could use information their competitors didn't have to increase profits.

This book is full of similar information and is an entertaing read to boot.

The biggest myth is Patents

The biggest myth in innovation is patents. Patents are not needed to overcome high R&D costs, because they are the cause of high R&D costs. And those stores about the lone inventor, well, that myth flourishes because patents discourage and punish collaberation. The worst myth of all is one that says patents financially benefit creators more than they harm them. But to a real innovator, the loss of one patent monopoly at the benefit of gaining access to 10 million other patent monopolies that were previously closed to him is a net gain. The thing to understand about patents is that patents force the market to center around invention controls instead of invention services. Well lawyers, governments, and bureaucrats are good at controlling things, but inventors are good at inventing things. A quick look at the real world will show that courts, lawyers, and executives benefit far more from patent controls than innovators.

But patents are far more evil than that. The fact that they must lie and try to pretend that it's just like a physical property right when ideas and inventions clearly are not even close to the nature of property in any way should be a clue that patents are not what they've been cracked up to be. Like how African nations were sued in the world court and 15 million Africans dying of AIDS were locked out from Indian made generics. Like how patents held back air-bags and anti-lock-brakes in automobiles for 20 years while over a million people died in accidents. Like how DDT and Freon were pushed out when their patents expired for less effective and less safe alternatives. The 15,000 estimated cancer deaths caused by DDT are nothing compared to the 50 million malaria deaths since it's ban. The environmental toxicity of freon is nothing compared to it's more complicated replacement for which DOW also has a patent. Like how vitamins, natural herbs and medicines, and alternative medicines, and "simple" medicines, are all pushed and regulated out of the marketplace in favor of medicines that have chemical side effects that can be patented. Companies have a vested interest in pushing less than optimal medicines even if better, safer, and cheaper alternatives exist. Also, people assume that every product having incompatible parts with every other product and all the environmental waste that ensues is just a normal part of a free market, it is not.

In sum, patents not only fail to help innovators, but are in fact genocidal. It will be a glorious day for productive people when patents die.

Future Hype

A very readable "debunking technology history" book is Future Hype by Bob Seidensticker. It is full of wonderful examples of "internet time" innovation back before the internet, or even electric service, was invented. Puts the awe of our fast-paced world in some badly-needed perspective.

Re:On iTunes and innovation

I don't see how you could think it is a "Mac zealot perspective". I am a Mac zealot, and disagree with nearly every concept offered in the review. One of the few things I agreed with was that the best product isn't always the biggest/best one with the most features (no shit, Sherlock). Unfortunately, we live in a consumer culture of excess where everything has to be big (SUV's) and have tons of features (stereo receivers where more buttons=better) etc. To be a fan of understated, minimalistic consumer electronics makes one a zealot or a fan-boi, because things like Macs, iPods and Bose stereos have far less features than similar products (that have more features and cost less). I for one am glad to be a zealot. At least I believe in something...