Federico Faggin, whose critical contributions at Intel led to the game-changer that was/is the microprocessor once spoke to the ‘inevitability’ of certain innovations, noting that, “Because these inventions have a certain inevitability about them, the real contribution lies in making the idea actually work.”
Thus, we can look at PCs, iPods, Google, eBay, YouTube, et al as inevitable in the sense that if the gorillas behind these innovations hadn’t broken through with their industry dominant offering, someone else would have.
In fact, Malcolm Gladwell (of ‘The Tipping Point’ fame) argues pretty convincingly in ‘IN THE AIR: Who Says Big Ideas are Rare?” that the history of science is chock full of ideas that several people had at the same time.
Far from minimizing the importance of the BIG BANG impact of wholly new ideas, this simply spotlights the truism that most “inventions” don't come from wholly new principles, but spring forth instead from the synthesis of existing principles.
Just about everything is derivative, and the magic is in how (as Faggin puts it) “the new form expands the previous one in both predictable and unpredictable ways,” adding that “typically, the unexpected consequences are the most valuable.” Indeed.
Consider, for example, the iPod. Apple did not create the MP3 player category, and it clearly benefited from a bunch of core technology, Internet infrastructure and licensing model innovations that proceeded it.
Yet, it took Apple to execute on the hard problem on getting workflow, UI and usability just right. It took them integrating device, PC and service layer in a synchronous, intuitive and user-friendly fashion; and even armed with all of that best practices data, no other competitor has yet emerged with a compelling alternative. Otherwise, the iPod would be a commodity, right?
My point is really three-fold. One is that pure, unfettered originality usually isn’t. Entrepreneurial-types, such as myself, might deign to pretend it were otherwise but that just aint so.
Truth be told, I regularly disavow customers, co-workers, partners and investors that, at least in most cases, it can and should be any different specifically because there is a tendency to undervalue the process and pseudo-defensibility of getting workflow, UI and usability both synchronously 'right' and on a rich evolution path.
Two is that execution, the act of making things work based on a codified set of outcome goals and metrics of success aligned around a consistently articulated ‘definition of the situation’ is hard. Really hard.
Consumers are notoriously unreliable when it comes to predicting their needs, what they will use and how much they will pay for it.
Enterprises are simultaneously chasing innovation and running away from it, forcing a thread the needle approach that often bleeds across functional departments and org chart lines, each with their own ambitions, objectives and tactics for getting what they want and blocking what they don’t want.
And even the best of product teams still have to grope, ship the idea, fix it and iterate their way to finding the sweet spot that secures the hearts and minds of customers in a manner that keeps investors engaged.
This leads to my third point. Most companies do a REALLY POOR job rolling out new products, creating new lines of business and building meaningful revenue lines from R&D seedlings.
Those that have a serious R&D budget tend to either under-estimate the importance of innovation or take a Labs-mentality that projects so far into the future that innovation amounts to proof-of-concepts that will likely never see the light of day as revenue-producing products.
Other than the afore-mentioned Apple, which embraces vision as strategy and then tactically just executes really well, Google, which embraces lots of seeds and then feeds the winners and Cisco, whose R&D is M&A, who else is getting R&D right?
Related Links:
- Holy Shit! Apple's Halo Effect: on the goodness of manufacturing leverage through strategic execution.
- The Chess Masters - Google versus Apple: why partners Apple and Google are without peers, and (seemingly) destined to become frien-emies.
- Googling Innovation: on strategies to Seed, Select, and Amplify new ideas.
- Best Practices - How to Build an Audience: a look at what the online innovators did right.
