Shared publicly  - 
 
The ability to innovate is NOT based on genetics.

That's the powerful argument that Clay Christensen makes in the awesome book, The Innovator's DNA, that I am reading right now.

He lays out the processes and practices that innovators take to make bold new business ideas.

Here is his "Model for Generating Innovative Ideas" below:

I believe it. I do believe that innovation starts with courage to challenge the status quo, and then builds upon that with the steps he outlines.
84
109
Turil Cronburg's profile photoPeter Meng's profile photoSteve RAFFNER's profile photoNorman Ma's profile photo
49 comments
 
Nice, we just put this algorithm in the machine and she begins to innovate instead of us. ;) The algorithms looks simple to implement I am wondering why it is so difficult to innovate.
 
Thanks. Have it downloading now for kindle.
 
While not based on genetics, does the capability to innovate require certain minimum bar of domain specific knowledge? Is it possible for a computer geek to be innovative in finance? There are a lot of people who are excellent communicators, for any and no subject.
 
I like to think my DNA looks more like that diagram then the classic double-helix.
 
Where is the feedback loop for adjusting to mistakes? I was in the Mac group when we had to punt on using our own disk system and then adopted the Sony drive. We could have easily shipped a DOA drive. Sometimes innovation is driven by necessity as much as insight.
 
Great model. It is always the simple things that show the way. Look forward to running this against some Diffusion of Innovations based models. Great work. JT
 
I think they got 95% of it.. IMO, what's missing here are two other key skills
- iterate and fine-tune (feedback arrow)
- persevere/adapt in the face of adversity (market conditions, team member leaving, competition catching on, etc etc)
b/c that one idea they show as output is almost never the final successful product/company
 
are you guys seriously thinking it is a mechanical way how we innovate?
 
this proves the premise that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Innovation has to be mechanical, or at the very least a structured methodical process.
 
+Juan Pasalagua "Innovation has to be mechanical" - "has to be?" No other way? I spend some time with the old books this is old idea move on.
 
Nothing mechanical about it. There is a process though. One thing I've noticed from Innovators is they can not stop their internal innovation processes. I think the iterative feedback environment is where the whole model is situated, it is fundamental to everything. Also the perseverance aspect is critical and I would use the word 'passionate'. Every innovator I know is fundamentally passionate about what they do. 
 
+Jeff Thom - exactly: "passionate". No machine is "passionate".
 
how about intellectual passion, mathematical passion? - I believe that there is a mechanical process behind it.
 
Yes a mechanical process as a functional aspect of an activity. As where the outcome is an alternative between decisions. Hence a logic.
 
The courage to innovate and take risks is key to me. I agree that anyone can innovate, but my theory is that - over time - fear impedes us. That fear is generated by society, our friends, our family, and outweighs the benefits of risk when it's not properly dealt with. Some people are raised with a lack of fear of failure. That's not necessarily courage, though. Sometimes it's a respect for failure and the appreciation (even love) of taking risks.
 
+Constantine Vasil - what exactly is that? looks like the piano my grandparents had :)
 
+Douglas Karr "taking risks" - so true. ...also you can get some "unexpected" help when you take bold risks - a personal experience..."taking risks" works easy is you don't have what to lose, this is the simplest way...more advanced - when you do have what to lose - just exploring that phase ;)
 
+Juan Pasalagua "- what exactly is that?" -

William Stanley Jevons' Logic ‘Piano’.

He was developing his own system of logic based on what he eventually called the ‘Substitution of Similars’, whereby ‘philosophy would be shown to consist solely in pointing out the likeness in things.


Jevons was quite taken with an example of indirect inference outlined by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus, and he uses it conclude the first chapter of Pure Logic:

"This creature, saith Chrysippus (of the dog) is not void of Logick: for, when in following any beast he cometh to three several ways, he smelleth the one, and then to the second, and if he find that the beast which he pursueth be not fled one of these two ways, he presently without smelling any further to it, taketh the third way; which saith the philosopher, is as if he reasoned thus: the beast must be gone either this, or this, or the other way; but neither this nor this; Ergo the third: so away he runneth."


Essentially Jevons established an approach to logical inference based on exactly this process of elimination:

Iron is a metal
Metal is an element

Iron is

Metal, element
Metal, not element
Not element, metal
Not element, not metal
The first premise tells us that iron is metal thus 3 and 4 are excluded
The second premise tell us metal must be element excluding


BUT all of this looks like BS to me ;)

Bottom line: there was a time I was exploring the limits of computer algorithms, looking back to the roots: de Morgan, Babbadge, Bool, Jevons, etc. For algorithms for fast computations. Researched everything available from years back to 1600. The first algos where for actuary in old England. Researched patents too.

No, this is not enough (mechanical way) I have been through this.
I am writing computer algos from 30 years and can tell you the mechanical way gets you up to some point.

...but there other ways... ;)
 
Simple but profound. Like most important things.
 
I'm not sure I understand your summary of the book's thesis. Is the suggestion that an emotion like courage, or the decision to challenge the status quo, is completely determined by social factors, and not contributed to by genetics in any way?
 
+ Constantine Vasil So most of the magic can be implemented in the machine but we need the passion to start it, complete it or somewhere in between. From your research you've covered a serious period of human innovation
 
uhhh... why everything should end up in a chart ?

Innovation is new, new is unknown, unknown -> fear -> chart
 
Bill I call this "Read, Think and Reason" a great skill to implement all the time.. Now I have a diagram to refer to.. Thanks perfect!
 
+Jeff Thom " From your research you've covered a serious period of human innovation" - plus countless hours implementing and testing ideas to see what is possible with current most advanced "mechanical" device - it can do very quickly what I want it to do and that is pretty much all. "Innovation" cannot come from "it". So I am happy man now ;) (innovation is in me, not the mechanical device).
 
+Terris Linenbach - "The ability to take risks in the sense that is glorfied here is reserved for a class of individuals who are mostly not talented" - wow, you touched a string, man, this resonated. "This" is not taking a risk. "This" is just exploring the opportunities.
 
Here is a story going a bit to the extreme. Read it and have fun ;)

In 2003, scientists at the Paignton Zoo and the University of Plymouth, in Devon, England, reportedly left six Sulawesi Crested Macaque monkeys with a computer keyboard for a month. Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they began by attacking the keyboard with a stone, then proceeded to urinate and defecate on it.

This man did something extreme and is on the cusp of "proving" "the theory that a million monkeys sitting at a million typewriters will eventually produce Shakespeare.".

http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/08/a-few-more-million-amazonian-monkeys/


"It's a milestone Anderson hopes to reach in a little over a week."

Oh, man, come on ;)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/07/works-shakespeare-produced-by-millions-monkeys/#ixzz1XIdfQLJg
 
The "Networking" component is the most critical in my view. Most innovation requires a degree of complexity (either the idea or execution) plus funding, and thinking by more than a single mind.
People have 'good ideas' all the time but most fall flat or disappear because innovation needs people to bring it to life.
Ben Ly
+
1
2
1
 
Steve Jobs' innovation formula:

Closed eyes. Sit still. Sit still. Sit still. It's in an Apple store near you.
 
Innovation comes from healthy intelligent brains (as humans have) getting what they need to function well combined with a moderate challenge. Seriously, this is what it takes. It's an automatic process of the human brain, which only gets compromised when there is a deficiency or toxicity in the body. Alas, most "modern" humans are fill of toxic crap (the "food" we're told to eat, the pollution in the water and air, etc.) and lacking in many of the most basic biological needs (vitamins and minerals, etc.).
 
Depends on your definition of "robot". All things in existence are controlled by the laws of physics (aka God) (and/or possibly by "randomness", if you're into that sort of thing). So all things are indeed automatic processes. It's just that with living things, there is a huge amount of complexity (chaos) involved. So yes, in general humans are predicable, just not in the details. So we can tell when someone won't be innovative and when they will, based on their health, but we can't predict what specific innovations they will have when they are healthy.
 
+Turil Cronburg robot=mechanical; "controlled by the laws of physics (aka God)" you are missing the driving force and free will;

"(chaos) involved" like in "proving" "the theory that a million monkeys sitting at a million typewriters will eventually produce Shakespeare."?
 
+Constantine Vasil , Ha! Free will! The driving force is the force of nature (also known as God and the laws of physics), and our will is only free in the sense that it is given to us as a gift, not in the sense that we have some supernatural power to disobey the laws of physics.
 
Yes we always have a choice and some people have the power to overcome what is pre-determined. The rest just accept it, don't do anything to make themselves rulers of their own destiny. But I realize materializm is the accepted dogma today and very few are advanced spiritually enough to understand that this is the mankind "destiny" - man is a "god in the making".
 
Sounds more like free will is the common dogma to me...
 
So, do you tried, ever...? And no, I see that the atheism is prevailing today. But this normal for our phase of development. That is what we have to overcome first. Otherwise we are stuck with materilism, which leads to greediness and just live for "today" because there is no "tomorrow", there is "nothing" after "me", all is "pre-determined" nothing we can "do", so let's spend spend and spend because there is not "tomorrow"...sounds familiar? By the way I see atheists talking about God (does it exists or not?) most of the time, they are obsessed with God, they have got an issue.
 
I don't know what you're talking about here. It doesn't have anything to do with what I've been talking about. Materialism is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being aware that everything is connected and that everything affects everything else in a grand web of beingness, thoughout all time and space. No man, or woman, or anything else within reality, is an island that is unaffected by the rest of reality. We are all being pushed and pulled by each other, moving together as a flow of energy, always both giving and receiving, with no possible way to be "greedy", at least not in the long term. One cannot take another breath until one exhales...

Oh, and matter is made up of energy! There is no "materialism" on the grand scale...

Both atheism and theism are, at the core, the same thing, just using different words.
 
> I don't know what you're talking about here.

You got to get to the core of things. Back to square one. A "Ha!" is not enough effort.

>There is no "materialism" on the grand scale...
Exactly but some people are, and that is the problem. To be more precise there is
a "primordial" matter ( a water like substance) existing "before" "creation" and existing
between "creations" . Energy alone is not enough (just a logic). Energy works on "something".
If we go further - Einstein is not the last word neither Stephen W. Hawking (the atheist).
By the way I am not sure what Stephen is actually thinking, nobody knows. He don't
talks directly so I am not sure what he actually is thinking. More like he is "used",
big money involved (just a hint - research back to the beginning who was using Stephen
and how it all began?). But this is an another topic.

>Both atheism and theism are, at the core, the same thing, just using different words.

No it is not. You are either an atheist or not. You believe in God or not. There is no a "middle
of the road".

>"We are all being pushed and pulled by each other"
So we are getting close the idea of the "Creator"? Which is inevitable.
Some "believe" in Him, some come by the "logic", yes the way does not matter.
"Creator", "God" are just names. There is one more name: "Elohim".

In the grand scale of things you need some "kind" of pre-existing matter, energy "impulse"
and also an archetype of "creation" - the three Things.
 
This is a very insightful model of innovation and creativity in general including songwriting. .
Add a comment...