82,891
edits
Innovation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
}}:“''Major innovation comes, most of all, from the unexplored no-man’s land between the disciplines.''” — {{author|Norbert Wiener}}, quoted by {{author|James Burke}} | }}:“''Major innovation comes, most of all, from the unexplored no-man’s land between the disciplines.''” — {{author|Norbert Wiener}}, quoted by {{author|James Burke}} | ||
If you are want to wreak innovation at ''your'' shop, consider yourself Clarice. Face up to your Lecter. | If you are want to wreak innovation at ''your'' shop, consider yourself Clarice. Face up to your Lecter. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
:'''Clarice''': No. We just... | :'''Clarice''': No. We just... | ||
:'''Lecter''': No. ''We begin by covering the arse we see every day.'' OUR OWN ARSE, Clarice. Don’t you see people extemporising to explain why it wasn’t their fault? And don’t your make excuses to avoid responsibility for the things you didn’t pay attention to? | :'''Lecter''': No. ''We begin by covering the arse we see every day.'' OUR OWN ARSE, Clarice. Don’t you see people extemporising to explain why it wasn’t their fault? And don’t your make excuses to avoid responsibility for the things you didn’t pay attention to? | ||
Every story can be boiled down this: once there was a problem and, for better or worse, it got resolved. It mainly be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an outcome. | |||
Storytellers who don't get to grips with this fundament — who allow something other than ''resolution of the problem'' to drive their narrative — write unsatisfying books. To not resolve the problem — ''eventually'': we all love a bit of will-they-won’t-they suspense as we go — is literally what it means to not satisfy. | |||
Business administrators retooling their operations to “modernise” might bear this in mind. The goal is not ''to introduce [[chatbot]]s'', or ''to outsource'', or to ''implement distributed ledger technology'' but to solve a problem. | |||
If someone clutching a hammer assigns you to a [[nail-finding task-force]], consider as you go Marcus Aurelius’ meditation, above. | |||
What is your desired outcome? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | |||
Put down your PowerPoint and write this on a piece of paper. What function are you seeking to change and why? | |||
Some ideas that might occur (there will be a lot of overlap): | |||
*This process is too slow. | |||
*This process is too complicated. | |||
*This process is too expensive. | |||
*This process requires too many people and too much oversight. | |||
*This process is too fragile. It keeps breaking. | |||
*This process is is too hard to understand. People keep getting it wrong. | |||
*This process is mostly routine and tedious but has a risky component and therefore requires an expert to carry out the whole thing. | |||
===Agents of innovation=== | |||
The flip side to the perils of [[complexity]] and [[normal accident]] theory, is convexity of benefit. Innovation, benefit, boon, fiesta ''is just as hard to predict as catastrophe''. But just as likely, if the people you have spotting weights in the gymnasium of disaster are experienced, clever, imaginative, [[problem solving]] people. | |||