Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Creative Conditions for Innovation
Paul Pangaro, Ph.D. Chair of Interaction Design Graduate Studies Program College for Creative Studies Detroit
Technology and Innovation Exchange BASF September 18, 2015
Graduate Studies Program College for Creative Studies Detroit
MFA Transportation Design MFA Color + Materials Design MFA Integrated Design MFA Interaction Design
Graduate Studies Program College for Creative Studies Detroit
Faces of CCS MFA
C L A S S O F 2 0 1 1
52 36 Industrial Design 4 Engineering 3 Design Studies 1 Digital/Visual Media 1 Animation Design 2 Transportation Design 1 Business Administration 1 Fine Arts 3 Visual Communications
Design by Xuege Jiang ‘11
INNOVATIONwhy is it so elusive?
and what is it, anyway?
what strategies might work?
how should we distribute resources?
how can we lower risk?
how can we increase the likelihood?
INNOVATION
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by as it diffuses becomes
valuechange
insightsim
ple ite
ration
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
com
mun
ity1 1
1
2 2
2
agrees on & is shaped by maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creating that is large enough gains frames possibilities for must be shared through
that fails may lead to new
may prompt a new
may create a multiplier effect leading to more
motivatespossessmust be proved through
helps improve
reduces risk, encouraging reforms relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills within a
agrees on & is shaped by maintains relationship toconv
entio
n
cont
ext
(env
ironm
ent)
inno
vatio
n
com
mun
ityco
mm
u
conv
entio
n
cont
ext
may
fail
to re
cogn
ize
each
face
s is imbalance in relations among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in relations amongpreserves status quo by re
sisting
is a measure of propensity for
aids
requ
ires
com
es fr
omdr
ive
pres
sure
(ext
erna
l)de
cay (
inte
rnal
)
chan
ge (d
istur
banc
e)
mis
fit (p
ain)
reco
gniti
on (d
efin
ition)
insi
ght (
seei
ng o
ppor
tuni
ty)
prep
arat
ion
(imm
ersio
n)
(a b
it of lu
ck)
artic
ulat
ion
(pro
toty
ping
)
dem
onst
ratio
n (te
stin
g)ev
alua
tes
adop
tion
(cou
nter
-cha
nge)
fit (g
ain)
lead
s to
new
is re
flect
ed a
s in
crea
sed
varie
ty(e
xper
ienc
es)
actio
ns
artif
acts
belie
fsm
ay le
ad to
may
lead
to
valu
e
indi
vidu
als
inno
vatio
na
mod
el o
f
increases the likelihood of
Dubb
erly
Desig
n Of
fice
prep
ared
this
conc
ept m
ap a
s a p
roje
ct
of th
e In
stitu
te fo
r the
Cre
ative
Pro
cess
at t
he A
lber
ta C
olle
ge o
f Ar
t and
Des
ign.
The
Inst
itute
exis
ts to
focu
s and
org
anize
act
ivitie
s, en
terp
rises
, and
initia
tives
of A
CAD
with
rega
rd to
the
cultiv
atio
n of
dia
logu
e, re
sear
ch, a
nd sp
ecia
l pro
ject
s tha
t dire
ctly
addr
ess
the
natu
re o
f the
cre
ative
pro
cess
and
des
ign
thin
king.
ACA
D is
a le
adin
g ce
ntre
for e
duca
tion
and
rese
arch
, and
a c
atal
yst f
or
crea
tive
inqu
iry a
nd c
ultu
ral d
evel
opm
ent.
Plea
se se
nd c
omm
ents
abo
ut th
is m
odel
to ic
p@ac
ad.c
a
Ackn
owle
dgem
ents
Writ
ing
and
desig
n by
Hugh
Dub
berly
, Nat
han
Feld
e, a
nd P
aul P
anga
roAd
ditio
nal d
esig
n by
Sean
Dur
ham
and
Rya
n Re
posa
rRe
sear
ch b
y Sa
toko
Kak
ihar
a, A
CAD
facu
lty C
hris
Frey
, Way
ne G
iles,
and
Darle
ne Le
e
Copy
right
© 20
07
Dubb
erly
Desig
n Of
fice
2501
Har
rison
Stre
et, #
7Sa
n Fr
anci
sco,
CA
9411
041
5 648
9799
Inst
itute
for t
he C
reat
ive P
roce
ssat
the
Albe
rta C
olle
ge o
f Art
+ De
sign
1407
-14 A
ve N
WCa
lgar
y, AB
Can
ada
T2N
4R3
403 2
84 76
70
Spon
sors
hip
EPCO
R, a
foun
ding
par
tner
of t
he In
stitu
te fo
r the
Cre
ative
Proc
ess,
gene
rous
ly pr
ovid
ed fu
ndin
g fo
r thi
s pro
ject
.
Prin
ted
in C
anad
a
W. R
oss A
shby
des
crib
es va
riety
as a
mea
sure
of in
form
atio
n.
Varie
ty d
escr
ibes
a sy
stem
’s po
tent
ial to
resp
ond
to
dist
urba
nces
—th
e op
tions
it ha
s ava
ilabl
e. A
pplie
d to
com
mun
ities,
varie
ty d
escr
ibes
the
expe
rienc
es—
the
richn
ess o
f lang
uage
and
ra
nge
of c
ultu
ral to
ols—
they
can
brin
g to
bea
r on
prob
lem
s.
In a
stab
le e
nviro
nmen
t, inc
reas
ing
effic
ienc
y mak
es se
nse.
Do
wha
t you
’ve b
een
doin
g, b
ut d
o it b
ette
r and
at a
low
er c
ost.
That
mea
ns n
arro
win
g la
ngua
ge—
decr
easin
g va
riety
.
In a
n un
stab
le e
nviro
nmen
t, pur
suin
g ef
ficie
ncy m
ay a
ctua
lly b
e da
nger
ous.
You
may
get
bet
ter a
t doi
ng th
e w
rong
thin
g—at
doi
ng
som
ethi
ng th
at n
o lo
nger
mat
ters
.
The
key i
s to
mak
e su
re w
hat y
ou p
rodu
ce is
valu
able
, bef
ore
you
wor
ry a
bout
mak
ing
it mor
e ef
ficie
ntly.
Incr
easin
g ef
fect
ivene
ss
calls
for i
ncre
asin
g va
riety
—ch
angi
ng p
ersp
ectiv
e, b
ringi
ng n
ew
peop
le, n
ew e
xper
ienc
e, a
nd n
ew la
ngua
ge in
to th
e co
nver
satio
nan
d ex
pand
ing
the
field
of a
ctio
n.
Som
e or
gani
zatio
ns h
ave
proc
esse
s by w
hich
thei
r mem
bers
bui
ld
(or b
uy) n
ew id
eas a
t a sm
all s
cale
. The
org
aniza
tions
vet (
or se
lect
or
des
troy)
idea
s, m
ovin
g a
few
to th
e ne
xt st
age.
The
y “in
cuba
te”
new
idea
s in
“hot
hous
es” l
ong
enou
gh to
laun
ch th
em in
to th
e w
orld
. Exa
mpl
es in
clud
e (p
erha
ps m
ost n
otab
ly) R
oyal
Dut
ch S
hell,
som
e re
ligio
ns (s
uch
as C
atho
licism
), ven
ture
cap
ital fi
rms,
and
tech
nolo
gy c
ompa
nies
such
as G
oogl
e.
Som
e co
mm
unitie
s (so
me
ecol
ogie
s) se
em to
hav
e th
e va
riety
and
st
ruct
ures
nee
ded
to ra
ise th
e pr
obab
ility o
f inno
vatio
n (w
ithin
ce
rtain
dom
ains
). For
exa
mpl
e, S
ilicon
Val
ley,
Rout
e 12
8 aro
und
Bost
on, A
ustin
, Res
earc
h Tr
iang
le, a
nd S
eattl
e al
l cur
rent
ly en
joy
this
adva
ntag
e.
Insig
ht b
egin
s a p
roce
ss o
f res
torin
g fit
. Insig
ht re
mai
ns th
e m
ost
mys
terio
us p
art o
f the
inno
vatio
n pr
oces
s. It
may
be
irred
ucib
le, b
ut
it can
be
aide
d. Im
mer
sion
with
in th
e co
ntex
t is a
lmos
t alw
ays
esse
ntia
l. Exp
erie
nce
with
oth
er d
omai
ns h
elps
(by i
ncre
asin
g va
riety
). For
exa
mpl
e, a
pplyi
ng p
atte
rns f
rom
oth
er d
omai
ns c
an
help
solve
new
pro
blem
s. Th
is is
the
prom
ise o
f Gen
rich
Alts
hulle
r’s
syst
em kn
own
as T
RIZ.
Insig
ht is
a ty
pe o
f hyp
othe
sis, a
form
of a
bduc
tion.
Insig
ht m
ay c
ome
from
juxt
apos
ition
and
patte
rn m
atch
ing.
Györ
gy P
olya
sugg
ests
ask
ing:
Wha
t is th
e un
know
n?W
hat a
re th
e da
ta?
Wha
t is th
e co
nditio
n? (W
hat a
re th
e co
nstra
ints
?)W
hat is
the
conn
ectio
n be
twee
n da
ta a
nd u
nkno
wn?
Wha
t is a
rela
ted
prob
lem
?Ho
w c
ould
you
rest
ate
the
prob
lem
?W
hat c
ould
you
draw
to re
pres
ent t
he p
robl
em?
No in
nova
tion
arise
s ful
ly fo
rmed
.
Artic
ulat
ion
prov
ides
a m
eans
of s
harin
g an
insig
ht.
Dem
onst
ratio
n pr
oves
(or d
ispro
ves)
the
insig
ht’s
valu
e.De
mon
stra
tion
prov
ides
a b
asis
for a
dopt
ion;
it i
s a ke
y to
crea
ting
chan
ge.
Dem
onst
ratio
n en
able
s eva
luat
ion.
Te
stin
g di
sclo
ses e
rrors
, incr
ease
s und
erst
andi
ng,
and
prov
ides
a b
asis
for i
mpr
ovem
ent.
Itera
tion
is al
way
s nec
essa
ry.
Of c
ours
e, th
e co
nven
tion
resu
lting
from
a su
cces
sful
inno
vatio
n di
ffers
from
the
conv
entio
n th
at p
rece
ded
it. Lik
ewise
, the
com
mun
ity th
at e
xists
afte
r an
inno
vatio
n is
likel
y to
have
cha
nged
fro
m th
e co
mm
unity
that
pre
cede
d it.
The
cont
ext, t
oo, is
likel
y to
hav
e ch
ange
d be
yond
the
chan
ge w
hich
cre
ated
the
misf
it le
adin
g to
an
inno
vatio
n.
The
scal
e of
cha
nge
varie
s. M
any p
eopl
e ha
ve p
ropo
sed
mod
els,
for e
xam
ple:
Mic
hael
Geo
gheg
an:
Reco
gnizi
ng a
new
dom
ain
of in
vent
ion
Crea
ting
new
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
disc
over
y with
in th
e do
mai
nIm
prov
ing
the
effic
ienc
y with
whi
ch th
e di
scov
erie
s are
app
lied
Hors
t Ritt
el:
Sim
ple
prob
lem
s, w
here
the
goal
is d
efin
edCo
mpl
ex p
robl
ems,
whe
re th
e go
al re
mai
ns u
ncle
arW
icke
d pr
oble
ms,
whe
re c
onst
ituen
ts c
anno
t agr
ee o
n th
e go
al
Parri
sh H
anna
:Ta
ctic
al o
r inc
rem
enta
lSt
rate
gic
or p
unct
uate
dCu
ltura
l or p
roce
ss-o
rient
ed
Each
inno
vatio
n is
a lin
k bet
wee
n tw
o co
nven
tions
:th
e on
e it r
epla
ces a
nd th
e on
e it b
ecom
es.
An in
nova
tion
is a
pivo
t; it t
rans
form
s one
per
iod
into
the
next
.
Ever
y con
vent
ion
exist
s with
in a
com
mun
ity.
A co
nven
tion
esta
blish
es a
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt. It
def
ines
a w
ay
the
com
mun
ity e
xpec
ts its
mem
bers
to b
ehav
e in
a g
iven
situa
tion.
It p
resc
ribes
the
tool
s th
ey c
an u
se, e
ven
wha
t the
y can
thin
k.
Ever
y inn
ovat
ion
has a
pre
cede
nt in
a
prev
ious
con
vent
ion.
Ever
y com
mun
ity e
xists
with
in a
con
text
.
Cont
ext is
the
envir
onm
ent in
whi
ch a
com
mun
ity liv
es.
To su
rvive
, a c
omm
unity
mus
t hav
e a
stab
le re
latio
nshi
p w
ith its
env
ironm
ent. M
aint
aini
ng th
at st
able
rela
tions
hip
is th
e pu
rpos
e of
con
vent
ions
.
A co
mm
unity
is a
syst
em o
f peo
ple
who
inte
ract
with
in a
n ag
reed
se
t of r
ules
—co
nven
tions
.
Typi
cally
, mem
bers
of a
com
mun
ity sh
are
a co
mm
on lo
catio
n or
co
mm
on in
tere
sts.
They
may
be
rela
ted
by b
irth
or m
ay c
ome
toge
ther
for s
ocia
l or b
usin
ess r
easo
ns. C
omm
unitie
s rel
y on
indi
vidua
ls to
pro
vide
the
varie
ty n
eces
sary
for s
urviv
al—
to sh
are
pers
pect
ive, in
sight
, idea
s, an
d in
spira
tion.
Over
time,
new
mem
bers
join
and
exis
ting
mem
bers
dep
art. T
hese
ch
ange
s can
affe
ct th
e co
nven
tions
the
com
mun
ity ke
eps.
Entro
py a
lway
s inc
reas
es.
Resis
ting
entro
py re
quire
s ene
rgy a
nd va
riety
.In
evita
bly,
both
are
limite
d.
Pres
sure
from
out
side
or d
ecay
insid
e ch
ange
s the
re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n a
com
mun
ity a
nd its
con
text
. Tha
t re
latio
nshi
p—fo
rmal
ized
as a
con
vent
ion—
is no
long
er
com
forta
ble,
no
long
er a
fit.
A di
stur
banc
e up
sets
an
exist
ing
conv
entio
n.
This
is a
root
cau
se o
f inno
vatio
n.
A di
stur
banc
e ha
s var
iety
of it
s ow
n.Un
less
a c
omm
unity
has
cor
resp
ondi
ng va
riety
to c
ance
l it,
the
varie
ty in
a d
istur
banc
e w
ill ov
erw
helm
the
com
mun
ity.
Varie
ty c
ance
ls va
riety
.
A m
isfit a
rises
whe
n a
conv
entio
n no
long
er m
aint
ains
a de
sired
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt.
Misf
it man
ifest
s its
elf a
s pai
n. It
exa
cts a
cos
t—ph
ysic
al, m
enta
l, soc
ial, o
r fin
anci
al—
on m
embe
rs
of th
e co
mm
unity
.Con
vention
s exis
t in a w
eb of
cultur
e. Inn
ovation
in on
e plac
e
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribe
s crea
tive de
struc
tion as
“the
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Reco
gnitio
n of
misf
it com
es fr
om o
bser
vatio
n an
d ex
perie
nce.
Rese
arch
met
hods
—su
ch a
s eth
nogr
aphy
—he
lp.
But id
entif
ying
a pr
oble
m re
quire
s def
initio
n.De
finitio
ns a
re c
onst
ruct
ed—
agre
ed to
.Th
ey h
ave
cons
titue
ncie
s.Th
us, d
efin
ition
is a
politi
cal a
ct,
an e
xerc
ise o
f pow
er.
Indi
vidua
ls w
ho a
re p
repa
red
to in
nova
te p
osse
ss:
Optim
ismBe
lief t
hey c
an im
prov
e th
e w
orld
Open
ness
to c
hang
eCo
nfid
ence
to m
ake
it so
Tena
city
, per
siste
nce
to se
e it t
hrou
ghPa
ssio
n, d
esire
, eve
n ob
sess
ion
Varie
tyEx
perie
nce,
skill,
and
tale
ntDo
mai
n ex
perti
seKn
owle
dge
of o
ther
dom
ains
Unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
proc
ess
Met
hods
and
tech
niqu
esM
anag
emen
t, rhe
toric
al, a
nd p
olitic
al sk
illsPr
actic
e (D
oing
it a
few
times
hel
ps.)
They
also
know
wha
t is n
ot kn
own
but n
eces
sary
fo
r pro
gres
s; th
ey u
nder
stan
d ho
w to
find
it; an
d th
ey
reco
gnize
who
can
pro
vide
that
know
ledg
e.
For i
nsig
ht to
mat
ter,
it mus
t be
artic
ulat
ed—
give
n fo
rm.
It m
ight
be
aHy
poth
esis
Mod
el o
r dia
gram
Outlin
eSc
ript o
r sto
rySk
etch
Moc
k-up
Prot
otyp
ePi
lot
Inno
vatio
n is
a ho
ly gr
ail o
f con
tem
pora
ry so
ciet
y, an
d es
peci
ally
busin
ess.
A flo
od o
f boo
ks a
nd m
agaz
ines
pro
mot
e it.
Desig
n fir
ms
prom
ise it.
Cus
tom
ers d
eman
d it.
Surv
ival, w
e’re
told
, dep
ends
on
it.
But w
hat is
it? A
nd h
ow d
o w
e ge
t it?
We
used
to a
sk th
e sa
me
ques
tions
abo
ut q
uality
. The
n W
alte
r Sh
ewha
rt an
d Ed
war
d De
min
g an
swer
ed. T
oday
, sta
tistic
al
proc
ess c
ontro
l, tot
al q
uality
man
agem
ent (
TQM
), kai
zen,
and
six
-sig
ma
man
agem
ent a
re fu
ndam
enta
l tool
s in
busin
ess.
Orga
niza
tions
hav
e be
com
e m
uch
bette
r at m
anag
ing
qual
ity.
Qual
ity h
as b
ecom
e a
com
mod
ity, o
r at le
ast “
tabl
e st
akes
,” ne
cess
ary b
ut n
ot su
ffici
ent. N
ow, in
nova
tion
mat
ters
mor
e—be
caus
e yo
u ca
n’t c
ompe
te o
n qu
ality
alo
ne, w
heth
er a
s a
busin
ess,
a co
mm
unity
, or a
soci
ety.
The
next
are
na o
f glo
bal
com
petit
ion
is in
nova
tion,
but
the
prac
tice
of in
nova
tion
rem
ains
st
uck s
ome
40 ye
ars b
ehin
d th
e pr
actic
e of
qua
lity.
Qual
ity is
larg
ely a
bout
impr
ovin
g ef
ficie
ncy,
whe
reas
inno
vatio
nis
larg
ely a
bout
impr
ovin
g ef
fect
ivene
ss. Im
prov
ing
qual
ity is
de
crea
sing
defe
cts.
It’s a
bout
mea
surin
g. It
’s m
akin
g pr
oces
ses
mor
e ef
ficie
nt. It
wor
ks w
ithin
an
exist
ing
para
digm
.
Busin
ess W
eek d
esig
n ed
itor B
ruce
Nus
sbau
m h
as su
gges
ted
you
can’
t mea
sure
your
way
to in
nova
tion—
mea
sure
men
t bei
ng th
e ha
llmar
k of q
uality
pro
cess
es. A
nd th
ough
som
e six
-sig
ma
advo
cate
s disa
gree
, Nus
sbau
m is
poi
ntin
g ou
t a fu
ndam
enta
l di
ffere
nce
betw
een
man
agin
g qu
ality
and
man
agin
g in
nova
tion.
In
nova
tion
is cr
eatin
g a
new
par
adig
m. It
’s no
t get
ting
bette
r at
play
ing
the
sam
e ga
me;
it’s c
hang
ing
the
rule
s and
cha
ngin
g th
e ga
me.
Inno
vatio
n is
not w
orkin
g ha
rder
; it’s
wor
king
smar
ter.
This
post
er p
ropo
ses a
mod
el fo
r inn
ovat
ion.
It ta
kes t
he fo
rm o
f a
conc
ept m
ap, a
serie
s of t
erm
s and
links
form
ing
prop
ositio
ns.
The
mod
el is
bui
lt on
the
idea
that
inno
vatio
n is
abou
t cha
ngin
g pa
radi
gms.
The
mod
el si
tuat
es in
nova
tion
betw
een
two
conv
en-
tions
. Inno
vatio
n tra
nsfo
rms o
ld in
to n
ew. It
is a
pro
cess
—a
proc
ess i
n w
hich
insig
ht in
spire
s cha
nge
and
crea
tes v
alue
. Th
e pr
oces
s beg
ins w
hen
exte
rnal
pre
ssur
e or
inte
rnal
dec
ay
dist
urbs
the
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt, a
re
latio
n m
aint
aine
d by
a c
onve
ntio
n.
The
exist
ing
conv
entio
n no
long
er “f
its.”
Perh
aps t
he c
onte
xt
chan
ged.
Or t
he c
omm
unity
. Or e
ven
the
conv
entio
n. S
omeo
ne
notic
es th
e m
isfit.
It ca
uses
stre
ss. It
cre
ates
eno
ugh
frict
ion,
en
ough
pai
n, to
jum
p in
to p
eopl
e’s c
onsc
ious
ness
. Per
cept
ion
of
misf
it alm
ost s
imul
tane
ously
give
s rise
to p
ropo
sals
for c
hang
e,fo
r ref
ram
ing.
The
se p
ropo
sals
com
pete
for a
ttent
ion.
Mos
t fai
l to
insp
ire, a
re ig
nore
d, a
nd fa
de a
way
.
The
chan
ges t
hat s
urviv
e ar
e by
def
initio
n th
ose
a co
mm
unity
finds
ef
fect
ive. T
hey s
prea
d be
caus
e th
ey in
crea
se fit
(gai
n) a
nd lo
wer
pa
in o
r cos
t (de
liver
ing
valu
e).
We
rare
ly re
cogn
ize in
nova
tion
whi
le it’
s hap
peni
ng. In
stea
d,
inno
vatio
n is
ofte
n a
labe
l app
lied
afte
r the
fact
, whe
n its
valu
e is
clea
r and
a n
ew c
onve
ntio
n ha
s bec
ome
esta
blish
ed.
Ethn
ogra
phy a
nd o
ther
rese
arch
tech
niqu
es m
ay h
elp
iden
tify
oppo
rtuni
ties f
or in
nova
tion.
Des
ign
met
hods
may
incr
ease
the
spee
d of
gen
erat
ing
and
test
ing
new
idea
s. Bu
t new
idea
s are
still
subj
ect t
o na
tura
l sel
ectio
n (o
r nat
ural
des
truct
ion)
in th
e po
litica
l pr
oces
s or t
he m
arke
tpla
ce.
Inno
vatio
n re
mai
ns m
essy
. Eve
n da
nger
ous.
Luck
and
cha
nce,
be
ing
at th
e rig
ht p
lace
at t
he ri
ght t
ime,
still
play
a ro
le. B
ut
heig
hten
ed se
nsitiv
ity a
nd p
ersis
tent
ale
rtnes
s may
incr
ease
luck
.
This
mod
el is
not
a re
cipe
. At b
est it
sugg
ests
way
s to
incr
ease
th
e pr
obab
ility o
f inno
vatio
n. O
ur g
oal is
for i
t to
spur
disc
ussio
n.
Our h
ope
is th
at in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g w
ill sp
ur in
nova
tion
and
incr
ease
the
grea
ter g
ood.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition
of go
als. Refr
aming
or re
fining
open
s the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of
evoluti
on—
and d
esign
.
- - - - - - - - -
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by as it diffuses becomes
valuechange
insightsim
ple ite
ration
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
com
mun
ity1 1
1
2 2
2
agrees on & is shaped by maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creating that is large enough gains frames possibilities for must be shared through
that fails may lead to new
may prompt a new
may create a multiplier effect leading to more
motivatespossess
must be proved through
helps improve
reduces risk, encouraging reforms relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills within a
agrees on & is shaped by maintains relationship toconv
entio
n
cont
ext
(env
ironm
ent)
inno
vatio
n
com
mun
ityco
mm
u
conv
entio
n
cont
ext
may
fail
to re
cogn
ize
each
face
s is imbalance in relations among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in relations amongpreserves status quo by re
sisting
is a measure of propensity for
aids
requ
ires
com
es fr
omdr
ive
pres
sure
(ext
erna
l)de
cay (
inte
rnal
)
chan
ge (d
istur
banc
e)
mis
fit (p
ain)
reco
gniti
on (d
efin
ition)
insi
ght (
seei
ng o
ppor
tuni
ty)
prep
arat
ion
(imm
ersio
n)
(a b
it of lu
ck)
artic
ulat
ion
(pro
toty
ping
)
dem
onst
ratio
n (te
stin
g)ev
alua
tes
adop
tion
(cou
nter
-cha
nge)
fit (g
ain)
lead
s to
new
is re
flect
ed a
s in
crea
sed
varie
ty(e
xper
ienc
es)
actio
ns
artif
acts
belie
fsm
ay le
ad to
may
lead
to
valu
e
indi
vidu
als
inno
vatio
na
mod
el o
f
increases the likelihood of
Dubb
erly
Desig
n Of
fice
prep
ared
this
conc
ept m
ap a
s a p
roje
ct
of th
e In
stitu
te fo
r the
Cre
ative
Pro
cess
at t
he A
lber
ta C
olle
ge o
f Ar
t and
Des
ign.
The
Inst
itute
exis
ts to
focu
s and
org
anize
act
ivitie
s, en
terp
rises
, and
initia
tives
of A
CAD
with
rega
rd to
the
cultiv
atio
n of
dia
logu
e, re
sear
ch, a
nd sp
ecia
l pro
ject
s tha
t dire
ctly
addr
ess
the
natu
re o
f the
cre
ative
pro
cess
and
des
ign
thin
king.
ACA
D is
a le
adin
g ce
ntre
for e
duca
tion
and
rese
arch
, and
a c
atal
yst f
or
crea
tive
inqu
iry a
nd c
ultu
ral d
evel
opm
ent.
Plea
se se
nd c
omm
ents
abo
ut th
is m
odel
to ic
p@ac
ad.c
a
Ackn
owle
dgem
ents
Writ
ing
and
desig
n by
Hugh
Dub
berly
, Nat
han
Feld
e, a
nd P
aul P
anga
roAd
ditio
nal d
esig
n by
Sean
Dur
ham
and
Rya
n Re
posa
rRe
sear
ch b
y Sa
toko
Kak
ihar
a, A
CAD
facu
lty C
hris
Frey
, Way
ne G
iles,
and
Darle
ne Le
e
Copy
right
© 20
07
Dubb
erly
Desig
n Of
fice
2501
Har
rison
Stre
et, #
7Sa
n Fr
anci
sco,
CA
9411
041
5 648
9799
Inst
itute
for t
he C
reat
ive P
roce
ssat
the
Albe
rta C
olle
ge o
f Art
+ De
sign
1407
-14 A
ve N
WCa
lgar
y, AB
Can
ada
T2N
4R3
403 2
84 76
70
Spon
sors
hip
EPCO
R, a
foun
ding
par
tner
of t
he In
stitu
te fo
r the
Cre
ative
Proc
ess,
gene
rous
ly pr
ovid
ed fu
ndin
g fo
r thi
s pro
ject
.
Prin
ted
in C
anad
a
W. R
oss A
shby
des
crib
es va
riety
as a
mea
sure
of in
form
atio
n.
Varie
ty d
escr
ibes
a sy
stem
’s po
tent
ial to
resp
ond
to
dist
urba
nces
—th
e op
tions
it ha
s ava
ilabl
e. A
pplie
d to
com
mun
ities,
varie
ty d
escr
ibes
the
expe
rienc
es—
the
richn
ess o
f lang
uage
and
ra
nge
of c
ultu
ral to
ols—
they
can
brin
g to
bea
r on
prob
lem
s.
In a
stab
le e
nviro
nmen
t, inc
reas
ing
effic
ienc
y mak
es se
nse.
Do
wha
t you
’ve b
een
doin
g, b
ut d
o it b
ette
r and
at a
low
er c
ost.
That
mea
ns n
arro
win
g la
ngua
ge—
decr
easin
g va
riety
.
In a
n un
stab
le e
nviro
nmen
t, pur
suin
g ef
ficie
ncy m
ay a
ctua
lly b
e da
nger
ous.
You
may
get
bet
ter a
t doi
ng th
e w
rong
thin
g—at
doi
ng
som
ethi
ng th
at n
o lo
nger
mat
ters
.
The
key i
s to
mak
e su
re w
hat y
ou p
rodu
ce is
valu
able
, bef
ore
you
wor
ry a
bout
mak
ing
it mor
e ef
ficie
ntly.
Incr
easin
g ef
fect
ivene
ss
calls
for i
ncre
asin
g va
riety
—ch
angi
ng p
ersp
ectiv
e, b
ringi
ng n
ew
peop
le, n
ew e
xper
ienc
e, a
nd n
ew la
ngua
ge in
to th
e co
nver
satio
nan
d ex
pand
ing
the
field
of a
ctio
n.
Som
e or
gani
zatio
ns h
ave
proc
esse
s by w
hich
thei
r mem
bers
bui
ld
(or b
uy) n
ew id
eas a
t a sm
all s
cale
. The
org
aniza
tions
vet (
or se
lect
or
des
troy)
idea
s, m
ovin
g a
few
to th
e ne
xt st
age.
The
y “in
cuba
te”
new
idea
s in
“hot
hous
es” l
ong
enou
gh to
laun
ch th
em in
to th
e w
orld
. Exa
mpl
es in
clud
e (p
erha
ps m
ost n
otab
ly) R
oyal
Dut
ch S
hell,
som
e re
ligio
ns (s
uch
as C
atho
licism
), ven
ture
cap
ital fi
rms,
and
tech
nolo
gy c
ompa
nies
such
as G
oogl
e.
Som
e co
mm
unitie
s (so
me
ecol
ogie
s) se
em to
hav
e th
e va
riety
and
st
ruct
ures
nee
ded
to ra
ise th
e pr
obab
ility o
f inno
vatio
n (w
ithin
ce
rtain
dom
ains
). For
exa
mpl
e, S
ilicon
Val
ley,
Rout
e 12
8 aro
und
Bost
on, A
ustin
, Res
earc
h Tr
iang
le, a
nd S
eattl
e al
l cur
rent
ly en
joy
this
adva
ntag
e.
Insig
ht b
egin
s a p
roce
ss o
f res
torin
g fit
. Insig
ht re
mai
ns th
e m
ost
mys
terio
us p
art o
f the
inno
vatio
n pr
oces
s. It
may
be
irred
ucib
le, b
ut
it can
be
aide
d. Im
mer
sion
with
in th
e co
ntex
t is a
lmos
t alw
ays
esse
ntia
l. Exp
erie
nce
with
oth
er d
omai
ns h
elps
(by i
ncre
asin
g va
riety
). For
exa
mpl
e, a
pplyi
ng p
atte
rns f
rom
oth
er d
omai
ns c
an
help
solve
new
pro
blem
s. Th
is is
the
prom
ise o
f Gen
rich
Alts
hulle
r’s
syst
em kn
own
as T
RIZ.
Insig
ht is
a ty
pe o
f hyp
othe
sis, a
form
of a
bduc
tion.
Insig
ht m
ay c
ome
from
juxt
apos
ition
and
patte
rn m
atch
ing.
Györ
gy P
olya
sugg
ests
ask
ing:
Wha
t is th
e un
know
n?W
hat a
re th
e da
ta?
Wha
t is th
e co
nditio
n? (W
hat a
re th
e co
nstra
ints
?)W
hat is
the
conn
ectio
n be
twee
n da
ta a
nd u
nkno
wn?
Wha
t is a
rela
ted
prob
lem
?Ho
w c
ould
you
rest
ate
the
prob
lem
?W
hat c
ould
you
draw
to re
pres
ent t
he p
robl
em?
No in
nova
tion
arise
s ful
ly fo
rmed
.
Artic
ulat
ion
prov
ides
a m
eans
of s
harin
g an
insig
ht.
Dem
onst
ratio
n pr
oves
(or d
ispro
ves)
the
insig
ht’s
valu
e.De
mon
stra
tion
prov
ides
a b
asis
for a
dopt
ion;
it i
s a ke
y to
crea
ting
chan
ge.
Dem
onst
ratio
n en
able
s eva
luat
ion.
Te
stin
g di
sclo
ses e
rrors
, incr
ease
s und
erst
andi
ng,
and
prov
ides
a b
asis
for i
mpr
ovem
ent.
Itera
tion
is al
way
s nec
essa
ry.
Of c
ours
e, th
e co
nven
tion
resu
lting
from
a su
cces
sful
inno
vatio
n di
ffers
from
the
conv
entio
n th
at p
rece
ded
it. Lik
ewise
, the
com
mun
ity th
at e
xists
afte
r an
inno
vatio
n is
likel
y to
have
cha
nged
fro
m th
e co
mm
unity
that
pre
cede
d it.
The
cont
ext, t
oo, is
likel
y to
hav
e ch
ange
d be
yond
the
chan
ge w
hich
cre
ated
the
misf
it le
adin
g to
an
inno
vatio
n.
The
scal
e of
cha
nge
varie
s. M
any p
eopl
e ha
ve p
ropo
sed
mod
els,
for e
xam
ple:
Mic
hael
Geo
gheg
an:
Reco
gnizi
ng a
new
dom
ain
of in
vent
ion
Crea
ting
new
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
disc
over
y with
in th
e do
mai
nIm
prov
ing
the
effic
ienc
y with
whi
ch th
e di
scov
erie
s are
app
lied
Hors
t Ritt
el:
Sim
ple
prob
lem
s, w
here
the
goal
is d
efin
edCo
mpl
ex p
robl
ems,
whe
re th
e go
al re
mai
ns u
ncle
arW
icke
d pr
oble
ms,
whe
re c
onst
ituen
ts c
anno
t agr
ee o
n th
e go
al
Parri
sh H
anna
:Ta
ctic
al o
r inc
rem
enta
lSt
rate
gic
or p
unct
uate
dCu
ltura
l or p
roce
ss-o
rient
ed
Each
inno
vatio
n is
a lin
k bet
wee
n tw
o co
nven
tions
:th
e on
e it r
epla
ces a
nd th
e on
e it b
ecom
es.
An in
nova
tion
is a
pivo
t; it t
rans
form
s one
per
iod
into
the
next
.
Ever
y con
vent
ion
exist
s with
in a
com
mun
ity.
A co
nven
tion
esta
blish
es a
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt. It
def
ines
a w
ay
the
com
mun
ity e
xpec
ts its
mem
bers
to b
ehav
e in
a g
iven
situa
tion.
It p
resc
ribes
the
tool
s th
ey c
an u
se, e
ven
wha
t the
y can
thin
k.
Ever
y inn
ovat
ion
has a
pre
cede
nt in
a
prev
ious
con
vent
ion.
Ever
y com
mun
ity e
xists
with
in a
con
text
.
Cont
ext is
the
envir
onm
ent in
whi
ch a
com
mun
ity liv
es.
To su
rvive
, a c
omm
unity
mus
t hav
e a
stab
le re
latio
nshi
p w
ith its
env
ironm
ent. M
aint
aini
ng th
at st
able
rela
tions
hip
is th
e pu
rpos
e of
con
vent
ions
.
A co
mm
unity
is a
syst
em o
f peo
ple
who
inte
ract
with
in a
n ag
reed
se
t of r
ules
—co
nven
tions
.
Typi
cally
, mem
bers
of a
com
mun
ity sh
are
a co
mm
on lo
catio
n or
co
mm
on in
tere
sts.
They
may
be
rela
ted
by b
irth
or m
ay c
ome
toge
ther
for s
ocia
l or b
usin
ess r
easo
ns. C
omm
unitie
s rel
y on
indi
vidua
ls to
pro
vide
the
varie
ty n
eces
sary
for s
urviv
al—
to sh
are
pers
pect
ive, in
sight
, idea
s, an
d in
spira
tion.
Over
time,
new
mem
bers
join
and
exis
ting
mem
bers
dep
art. T
hese
ch
ange
s can
affe
ct th
e co
nven
tions
the
com
mun
ity ke
eps.
Entro
py a
lway
s inc
reas
es.
Resis
ting
entro
py re
quire
s ene
rgy a
nd va
riety
.In
evita
bly,
both
are
limite
d.
Pres
sure
from
out
side
or d
ecay
insid
e ch
ange
s the
re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n a
com
mun
ity a
nd its
con
text
. Tha
t re
latio
nshi
p—fo
rmal
ized
as a
con
vent
ion—
is no
long
er
com
forta
ble,
no
long
er a
fit.
A di
stur
banc
e up
sets
an
exist
ing
conv
entio
n.
This
is a
root
cau
se o
f inno
vatio
n.
A di
stur
banc
e ha
s var
iety
of it
s ow
n.Un
less
a c
omm
unity
has
cor
resp
ondi
ng va
riety
to c
ance
l it,
the
varie
ty in
a d
istur
banc
e w
ill ov
erw
helm
the
com
mun
ity.
Varie
ty c
ance
ls va
riety
.
A m
isfit a
rises
whe
n a
conv
entio
n no
long
er m
aint
ains
a de
sired
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt.
Misf
it man
ifest
s its
elf a
s pai
n. It
exa
cts a
cos
t—ph
ysic
al, m
enta
l, soc
ial, o
r fin
anci
al—
on m
embe
rs
of th
e co
mm
unity
.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnova
tion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribe
s crea
tive de
struc
tion as
“the
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Reco
gnitio
n of
misf
it com
es fr
om o
bser
vatio
n an
d ex
perie
nce.
Rese
arch
met
hods
—su
ch a
s eth
nogr
aphy
—he
lp.
But id
entif
ying
a pr
oble
m re
quire
s def
initio
n.De
finitio
ns a
re c
onst
ruct
ed—
agre
ed to
.Th
ey h
ave
cons
titue
ncie
s.Th
us, d
efin
ition
is a
politi
cal a
ct,
an e
xerc
ise o
f pow
er.
Indi
vidua
ls w
ho a
re p
repa
red
to in
nova
te p
osse
ss:
Optim
ismBe
lief t
hey c
an im
prov
e th
e w
orld
Open
ness
to c
hang
eCo
nfid
ence
to m
ake
it so
Tena
city
, per
siste
nce
to se
e it t
hrou
ghPa
ssio
n, d
esire
, eve
n ob
sess
ion
Varie
tyEx
perie
nce,
skill,
and
tale
ntDo
mai
n ex
perti
seKn
owle
dge
of o
ther
dom
ains
Unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
proc
ess
Met
hods
and
tech
niqu
esM
anag
emen
t, rhe
toric
al, a
nd p
olitic
al sk
illsPr
actic
e (D
oing
it a
few
times
hel
ps.)
They
also
know
wha
t is n
ot kn
own
but n
eces
sary
fo
r pro
gres
s; th
ey u
nder
stan
d ho
w to
find
it; an
d th
ey
reco
gnize
who
can
pro
vide
that
know
ledg
e.
For i
nsig
ht to
mat
ter,
it mus
t be
artic
ulat
ed—
give
n fo
rm.
It m
ight
be
aHy
poth
esis
Mod
el o
r dia
gram
Outlin
eSc
ript o
r sto
rySk
etch
Moc
k-up
Prot
otyp
ePi
lot
Inno
vatio
n is
a ho
ly gr
ail o
f con
tem
pora
ry so
ciet
y, an
d es
peci
ally
busin
ess.
A flo
od o
f boo
ks a
nd m
agaz
ines
pro
mot
e it.
Desig
n fir
ms
prom
ise it.
Cus
tom
ers d
eman
d it.
Surv
ival, w
e’re
told
, dep
ends
on
it.
But w
hat is
it? A
nd h
ow d
o w
e ge
t it?
We
used
to a
sk th
e sa
me
ques
tions
abo
ut q
uality
. The
n W
alte
r Sh
ewha
rt an
d Ed
war
d De
min
g an
swer
ed. T
oday
, sta
tistic
al
proc
ess c
ontro
l, tot
al q
uality
man
agem
ent (
TQM
), kai
zen,
and
six
-sig
ma
man
agem
ent a
re fu
ndam
enta
l tool
s in
busin
ess.
Orga
niza
tions
hav
e be
com
e m
uch
bette
r at m
anag
ing
qual
ity.
Qual
ity h
as b
ecom
e a
com
mod
ity, o
r at le
ast “
tabl
e st
akes
,” ne
cess
ary b
ut n
ot su
ffici
ent. N
ow, in
nova
tion
mat
ters
mor
e—be
caus
e yo
u ca
n’t c
ompe
te o
n qu
ality
alo
ne, w
heth
er a
s a
busin
ess,
a co
mm
unity
, or a
soci
ety.
The
next
are
na o
f glo
bal
com
petit
ion
is in
nova
tion,
but
the
prac
tice
of in
nova
tion
rem
ains
st
uck s
ome
40 ye
ars b
ehin
d th
e pr
actic
e of
qua
lity.
Qual
ity is
larg
ely a
bout
impr
ovin
g ef
ficie
ncy,
whe
reas
inno
vatio
nis
larg
ely a
bout
impr
ovin
g ef
fect
ivene
ss. Im
prov
ing
qual
ity is
de
crea
sing
defe
cts.
It’s a
bout
mea
surin
g. It
’s m
akin
g pr
oces
ses
mor
e ef
ficie
nt. It
wor
ks w
ithin
an
exist
ing
para
digm
.
Busin
ess W
eek d
esig
n ed
itor B
ruce
Nus
sbau
m h
as su
gges
ted
you
can’
t mea
sure
your
way
to in
nova
tion—
mea
sure
men
t bei
ng th
e ha
llmar
k of q
uality
pro
cess
es. A
nd th
ough
som
e six
-sig
ma
advo
cate
s disa
gree
, Nus
sbau
m is
poi
ntin
g ou
t a fu
ndam
enta
l di
ffere
nce
betw
een
man
agin
g qu
ality
and
man
agin
g in
nova
tion.
In
nova
tion
is cr
eatin
g a
new
par
adig
m. It
’s no
t get
ting
bette
r at
play
ing
the
sam
e ga
me;
it’s c
hang
ing
the
rule
s and
cha
ngin
g th
e ga
me.
Inno
vatio
n is
not w
orkin
g ha
rder
; it’s
wor
king
smar
ter.
This
post
er p
ropo
ses a
mod
el fo
r inn
ovat
ion.
It ta
kes t
he fo
rm o
f a
conc
ept m
ap, a
serie
s of t
erm
s and
links
form
ing
prop
ositio
ns.
The
mod
el is
bui
lt on
the
idea
that
inno
vatio
n is
abou
t cha
ngin
g pa
radi
gms.
The
mod
el si
tuat
es in
nova
tion
betw
een
two
conv
en-
tions
. Inno
vatio
n tra
nsfo
rms o
ld in
to n
ew. It
is a
pro
cess
—a
proc
ess i
n w
hich
insig
ht in
spire
s cha
nge
and
crea
tes v
alue
. Th
e pr
oces
s beg
ins w
hen
exte
rnal
pre
ssur
e or
inte
rnal
dec
ay
dist
urbs
the
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt, a
re
latio
n m
aint
aine
d by
a c
onve
ntio
n.
The
exist
ing
conv
entio
n no
long
er “f
its.”
Perh
aps t
he c
onte
xt
chan
ged.
Or t
he c
omm
unity
. Or e
ven
the
conv
entio
n. S
omeo
ne
notic
es th
e m
isfit.
It ca
uses
stre
ss. It
cre
ates
eno
ugh
frict
ion,
en
ough
pai
n, to
jum
p in
to p
eopl
e’s c
onsc
ious
ness
. Per
cept
ion
of
misf
it alm
ost s
imul
tane
ously
give
s rise
to p
ropo
sals
for c
hang
e,fo
r ref
ram
ing.
The
se p
ropo
sals
com
pete
for a
ttent
ion.
Mos
t fai
l to
insp
ire, a
re ig
nore
d, a
nd fa
de a
way
.
The
chan
ges t
hat s
urviv
e ar
e by
def
initio
n th
ose
a co
mm
unity
finds
ef
fect
ive. T
hey s
prea
d be
caus
e th
ey in
crea
se fit
(gai
n) a
nd lo
wer
pa
in o
r cos
t (de
liver
ing
valu
e).
We
rare
ly re
cogn
ize in
nova
tion
whi
le it’
s hap
peni
ng. In
stea
d,
inno
vatio
n is
ofte
n a
labe
l app
lied
afte
r the
fact
, whe
n its
valu
e is
clea
r and
a n
ew c
onve
ntio
n ha
s bec
ome
esta
blish
ed.
Ethn
ogra
phy a
nd o
ther
rese
arch
tech
niqu
es m
ay h
elp
iden
tify
oppo
rtuni
ties f
or in
nova
tion.
Des
ign
met
hods
may
incr
ease
the
spee
d of
gen
erat
ing
and
test
ing
new
idea
s. Bu
t new
idea
s are
still
subj
ect t
o na
tura
l sel
ectio
n (o
r nat
ural
des
truct
ion)
in th
e po
litica
l pr
oces
s or t
he m
arke
tpla
ce.
Inno
vatio
n re
mai
ns m
essy
. Eve
n da
nger
ous.
Luck
and
cha
nce,
be
ing
at th
e rig
ht p
lace
at t
he ri
ght t
ime,
still
play
a ro
le. B
ut
heig
hten
ed se
nsitiv
ity a
nd p
ersis
tent
ale
rtnes
s may
incr
ease
luck
.
This
mod
el is
not
a re
cipe
. At b
est it
sugg
ests
way
s to
incr
ease
th
e pr
obab
ility o
f inno
vatio
n. O
ur g
oal is
for i
t to
spur
disc
ussio
n.
Our h
ope
is th
at in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g w
ill sp
ur in
nova
tion
and
incr
ease
the
grea
ter g
ood.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition
of go
als. Refr
aming
or re
fining
open
s the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of
evoluti
on—
and d
esign
.
- - - - - - - - -
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by
as it diffuses becomes value
changeinsight
simple
iterat
ion
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
community1
1
1
2
2
2
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creatingthat is large enough gains
frames possibilities for
must be shared through
that
fails
may
lead
to n
ew
may
pro
mpt
a n
ew
may
cre
ate
a m
ultip
lier e
ffect
lead
ing
to m
ore
mot
ivat
espo
sses
s
must be proved through
help
s im
prov
e
reduces risk, encouragingreform
s relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills w
ithin a
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
convention
context(environment)
innovation
community commu
convention
context
may fail to recognize
each faces
is imbalance in
relatio
ns among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in re
lations among
preserves status quo by resisting
is a m
easure of p
ropensity f
or
aidsrequires comes from drive
pressure (external)decay (internal)
change (disturbance)
misfit (pain)
recognition (definition)
insight (seeing opportunity)preparation(immersion)
(a bit of luck)
articulation (prototyping)
demonstration (testing)evaluates
adoption (counter-change)
fit (gain)
leads to new
is reflected as increased
variety(experiences)
actions
artifacts
beliefsmay lead to
may lead to
value
individuals
innovationa model of
increases the likelihood of
Dubberly Design Office prepared this concept map as a project of the Institute for the Creative Process at the Alberta College of Art and Design. The Institute exists to focus and organize activities, enterprises, and initiatives of ACAD with regard to the cultivation of dialogue, research, and special projects that directly address the nature of the creative process and design thinking. ACAD is a leading centre for education and research, and a catalyst for creative inquiry and cultural development.
Please send comments about this model to [email protected]
Acknowledgements
Writing and design byHugh Dubberly, Nathan Felde, and Paul PangaroAdditional design bySean Durham and Ryan ReposarResearch by Satoko Kakihara, ACAD faculty Chris Frey, Wayne Giles, and Darlene Lee
Copyright © 2007
Dubberly Design Office2501 Harrison Street, #7San Francisco, CA 94110415 648 9799
Institute for the Creative Processat the Alberta College of Art + Design1407-14 Ave NWCalgary, AB CanadaT2N 4R3403 284 7670
Sponsorship
EPCOR, a founding partner of the Institute for the CreativeProcess, generously provided funding for this project.
Printed in Canada
W. Ross Ashby describes variety as a measure of information. Variety describes a system’s potential to respond to disturbances—the options it has available. Applied to communities, variety describes the experiences—the richness of language and range of cultural tools—they can bring to bear on problems.
In a stable environment, increasing efficiency makes sense. Do what you’ve been doing, but do it better and at a lower cost. That means narrowing language—decreasing variety.
In an unstable environment, pursuing efficiency may actually be dangerous. You may get better at doing the wrong thing—at doing something that no longer matters.
The key is to make sure what you produce is valuable, before you worry about making it more efficiently. Increasing effectiveness calls for increasing variety—changing perspective, bringing new people, new experience, and new language into the conversationand expanding the field of action.
Some organizations have processes by which their members build (or buy) new ideas at a small scale. The organizations vet (or select or destroy) ideas, moving a few to the next stage. They “incubate” new ideas in “hothouses” long enough to launch them into the world. Examples include (perhaps most notably) Royal Dutch Shell, some religions (such as Catholicism), venture capital firms, and technology companies such as Google.
Some communities (some ecologies) seem to have the variety and structures needed to raise the probability of innovation (within certain domains). For example, Silicon Valley, Route 128 around Boston, Austin, Research Triangle, and Seattle all currently enjoy this advantage.
Insight begins a process of restoring fit. Insight remains the most mysterious part of the innovation process. It may be irreducible, but it can be aided. Immersion within the context is almost always essential. Experience with other domains helps (by increasing variety). For example, applying patterns from other domains can help solve new problems. This is the promise of Genrich Altshuller’s system known as TRIZ.
Insight is a type of hypothesis, a form of abduction.Insight may come from juxtaposition and pattern matching.
György Polya suggests asking:What is the unknown?What are the data?What is the condition? (What are the constraints?)What is the connection between data and unknown?What is a related problem?How could you restate the problem?What could you draw to represent the problem?
No innovation arises fully formed.
Articulation provides a means of sharing an insight.Demonstration proves (or disproves) the insight’s value.Demonstration provides a basis for adoption; it is a key to creating change.
Demonstration enables evaluation. Testing discloses errors, increases understanding, and provides a basis for improvement.
Iteration is always necessary.
Of course, the convention resulting from a successful innovation differs from the convention that preceded it. Likewise, the community that exists after an innovation is likely to have changed from the community that preceded it. The context, too, is likely to have changed beyond the change which created the misfit leading to an innovation.
The scale of change varies. Many people have proposed models, for example:
Michael Geoghegan:Recognizing a new domain of inventionCreating new opportunities for discovery within the domainImproving the efficiency with which the discoveries are applied
Horst Rittel:Simple problems, where the goal is definedComplex problems, where the goal remains unclearWicked problems, where constituents cannot agree on the goal
Parrish Hanna:Tactical or incrementalStrategic or punctuatedCultural or process-oriented
Each innovation is a link between two conventions:the one it replaces and the one it becomes. An innovation is a pivot; it transforms one period into the next.
Every convention exists within a community.
A convention establishes a relation between a community and its context. It defines a way the community expects its members to behave in a given situation. It prescribes the tools they can use, even what they can think.
Every innovation has a precedent in a previous convention.
Every community exists within a context.
Context is the environment in which a community lives. To survive, a community must have a stable relationship with its environment. Maintaining that stable relationship is the purpose of conventions.
A community is a system of people who interact within an agreed set of rules—conventions.
Typically, members of a community share a common location or common interests. They may be related by birth or may come together for social or business reasons. Communities rely on individuals to provide the variety necessary for survival—to share perspective, insight, ideas, and inspiration.
Over time, new members join and existing members depart. These changes can affect the conventions the community keeps.
Entropy always increases. Resisting entropy requires energy and variety.Inevitably, both are limited.
Pressure from outside or decay inside changes the relationship between a community and its context. That relationship—formalized as a convention—is no longer comfortable, no longer a fit.
A disturbance upsets an existing convention. This is a root cause of innovation.
A disturbance has variety of its own.Unless a community has corresponding variety to cancel it,the variety in a disturbance will overwhelm the community.Variety cancels variety.
A misfit arises when a convention no longer maintainsa desired relation between a community and its context.
Misfit manifests itself as pain. It exacts a cost—physical, mental, social, or financial—on members of the community.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnovat
ion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribes
creativ
e dest
ruction
as “th
e
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Recognition of misfit comes from observation and experience.Research methods—such as ethnography—help.
But identifying a problem requires definition.Definitions are constructed—agreed to.They have constituencies.Thus, definition is a political act, an exercise of power.
Individuals who are prepared to innovate possess:
OptimismBelief they can improve the worldOpenness to changeConfidence to make it soTenacity, persistence to see it throughPassion, desire, even obsession
VarietyExperience, skill, and talentDomain expertiseKnowledge of other domainsUnderstanding of the processMethods and techniquesManagement, rhetorical, and political skillsPractice (Doing it a few times helps.)
They also know what is not known but necessary for progress; they understand how to find it; and they recognize who can provide that knowledge.
For insight to matter, it must be articulated—given form.
It might be aHypothesisModel or diagramOutlineScript or storySketchMock-upPrototypePilot
Innovation is a holy grail of contemporary society, and especially business. A flood of books and magazines promote it. Design firms promise it. Customers demand it. Survival, we’re told, depends on it.
But what is it? And how do we get it?
We used to ask the same questions about quality. Then Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming answered. Today, statistical process control, total quality management (TQM), kaizen, and six-sigma management are fundamental tools in business.
Organizations have become much better at managing quality. Quality has become a commodity, or at least “table stakes,” necessary but not sufficient. Now, innovation matters more—because you can’t compete on quality alone, whether as a business, a community, or a society. The next arena of global competition is innovation, but the practice of innovation remains stuck some 40 years behind the practice of quality.
Quality is largely about improving efficiency, whereas innovationis largely about improving effectiveness. Improving quality is decreasing defects. It’s about measuring. It’s making processes more efficient. It works within an existing paradigm.
Business Week design editor Bruce Nussbaum has suggested you can’t measure your way to innovation—measurement being the hallmark of quality processes. And though some six-sigma advocates disagree, Nussbaum is pointing out a fundamental difference between managing quality and managing innovation. Innovation is creating a new paradigm. It’s not getting better at playing the same game; it’s changing the rules and changing the game. Innovation is not working harder; it’s working smarter.
This poster proposes a model for innovation. It takes the form of a concept map, a series of terms and links forming propositions.
The model is built on the idea that innovation is about changing paradigms. The model situates innovation between two conven-tions. Innovation transforms old into new. It is a process—a process in which insight inspires change and creates value. The process begins when external pressure or internal decay disturbs the relation between a community and its context, a relation maintained by a convention.
The existing convention no longer “fits.” Perhaps the context changed. Or the community. Or even the convention. Someone notices the misfit. It causes stress. It creates enough friction, enough pain, to jump into people’s consciousness. Perception of misfit almost simultaneously gives rise to proposals for change,for reframing. These proposals compete for attention. Most fail to inspire, are ignored, and fade away.
The changes that survive are by definition those a community finds effective. They spread because they increase fit (gain) and lower pain or cost (delivering value).
We rarely recognize innovation while it’s happening. Instead, innovation is often a label applied after the fact, when its value is clear and a new convention has become established.
Ethnography and other research techniques may help identify opportunities for innovation. Design methods may increase the speed of generating and testing new ideas. But new ideas are still subject to natural selection (or natural destruction) in the political process or the marketplace.
Innovation remains messy. Even dangerous. Luck and chance, being at the right place at the right time, still play a role. But heightened sensitivity and persistent alertness may increase luck.
This model is not a recipe. At best it suggests ways to increase the probability of innovation. Our goal is for it to spur discussion. Our hope is that increased understanding will spur innovation and increase the greater good.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition o
f goals
. Refram
ing or
refini
ng ope
ns the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of ev
olution
—an
d desi
gn.
---
---
---
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by
as it diffuses becomes value
changeinsight
simple
iterat
ion
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
community1
1
1
2
2
2
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creatingthat is large enough gains
frames possibilities for
must be shared through
that
fails
may
lead
to n
ew
may
pro
mpt
a n
ew
may
cre
ate
a m
ultip
lier e
ffect
lead
ing
to m
ore
mot
ivat
espo
sses
s
must be proved through
help
s im
prov
e
reduces risk, encouragingreform
s relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills w
ithin a
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
convention
context(environment)
innovation
community commu
convention
context
may fail to recognize
each faces
is imbalance in
relatio
ns among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in re
lations among
preserves status quo by resisting
is a m
easure of p
ropensity f
or
aidsrequires comes from drive
pressure (external)decay (internal)
change (disturbance)
misfit (pain)
recognition (definition)
insight (seeing opportunity)preparation(immersion)
(a bit of luck)
articulation (prototyping)
demonstration (testing)evaluates
adoption (counter-change)
fit (gain)
leads to new
is reflected as increased
variety(experiences)
actions
artifacts
beliefsmay lead to
may lead to
value
individuals
innovationa model of
increases the likelihood of
Dubberly Design Office prepared this concept map as a project of the Institute for the Creative Process at the Alberta College of Art and Design. The Institute exists to focus and organize activities, enterprises, and initiatives of ACAD with regard to the cultivation of dialogue, research, and special projects that directly address the nature of the creative process and design thinking. ACAD is a leading centre for education and research, and a catalyst for creative inquiry and cultural development.
Please send comments about this model to [email protected]
Acknowledgements
Writing and design byHugh Dubberly, Nathan Felde, and Paul PangaroAdditional design bySean Durham and Ryan ReposarResearch by Satoko Kakihara, ACAD faculty Chris Frey, Wayne Giles, and Darlene Lee
Copyright © 2007
Dubberly Design Office2501 Harrison Street, #7San Francisco, CA 94110415 648 9799
Institute for the Creative Processat the Alberta College of Art + Design1407-14 Ave NWCalgary, AB CanadaT2N 4R3403 284 7670
Sponsorship
EPCOR, a founding partner of the Institute for the CreativeProcess, generously provided funding for this project.
Printed in Canada
W. Ross Ashby describes variety as a measure of information. Variety describes a system’s potential to respond to disturbances—the options it has available. Applied to communities, variety describes the experiences—the richness of language and range of cultural tools—they can bring to bear on problems.
In a stable environment, increasing efficiency makes sense. Do what you’ve been doing, but do it better and at a lower cost. That means narrowing language—decreasing variety.
In an unstable environment, pursuing efficiency may actually be dangerous. You may get better at doing the wrong thing—at doing something that no longer matters.
The key is to make sure what you produce is valuable, before you worry about making it more efficiently. Increasing effectiveness calls for increasing variety—changing perspective, bringing new people, new experience, and new language into the conversationand expanding the field of action.
Some organizations have processes by which their members build (or buy) new ideas at a small scale. The organizations vet (or select or destroy) ideas, moving a few to the next stage. They “incubate” new ideas in “hothouses” long enough to launch them into the world. Examples include (perhaps most notably) Royal Dutch Shell, some religions (such as Catholicism), venture capital firms, and technology companies such as Google.
Some communities (some ecologies) seem to have the variety and structures needed to raise the probability of innovation (within certain domains). For example, Silicon Valley, Route 128 around Boston, Austin, Research Triangle, and Seattle all currently enjoy this advantage.
Insight begins a process of restoring fit. Insight remains the most mysterious part of the innovation process. It may be irreducible, but it can be aided. Immersion within the context is almost always essential. Experience with other domains helps (by increasing variety). For example, applying patterns from other domains can help solve new problems. This is the promise of Genrich Altshuller’s system known as TRIZ.
Insight is a type of hypothesis, a form of abduction.Insight may come from juxtaposition and pattern matching.
György Polya suggests asking:What is the unknown?What are the data?What is the condition? (What are the constraints?)What is the connection between data and unknown?What is a related problem?How could you restate the problem?What could you draw to represent the problem?
No innovation arises fully formed.
Articulation provides a means of sharing an insight.Demonstration proves (or disproves) the insight’s value.Demonstration provides a basis for adoption; it is a key to creating change.
Demonstration enables evaluation. Testing discloses errors, increases understanding, and provides a basis for improvement.
Iteration is always necessary.
Of course, the convention resulting from a successful innovation differs from the convention that preceded it. Likewise, the community that exists after an innovation is likely to have changed from the community that preceded it. The context, too, is likely to have changed beyond the change which created the misfit leading to an innovation.
The scale of change varies. Many people have proposed models, for example:
Michael Geoghegan:Recognizing a new domain of inventionCreating new opportunities for discovery within the domainImproving the efficiency with which the discoveries are applied
Horst Rittel:Simple problems, where the goal is definedComplex problems, where the goal remains unclearWicked problems, where constituents cannot agree on the goal
Parrish Hanna:Tactical or incrementalStrategic or punctuatedCultural or process-oriented
Each innovation is a link between two conventions:the one it replaces and the one it becomes. An innovation is a pivot; it transforms one period into the next.
Every convention exists within a community.
A convention establishes a relation between a community and its context. It defines a way the community expects its members to behave in a given situation. It prescribes the tools they can use, even what they can think.
Every innovation has a precedent in a previous convention.
Every community exists within a context.
Context is the environment in which a community lives. To survive, a community must have a stable relationship with its environment. Maintaining that stable relationship is the purpose of conventions.
A community is a system of people who interact within an agreed set of rules—conventions.
Typically, members of a community share a common location or common interests. They may be related by birth or may come together for social or business reasons. Communities rely on individuals to provide the variety necessary for survival—to share perspective, insight, ideas, and inspiration.
Over time, new members join and existing members depart. These changes can affect the conventions the community keeps.
Entropy always increases. Resisting entropy requires energy and variety.Inevitably, both are limited.
Pressure from outside or decay inside changes the relationship between a community and its context. That relationship—formalized as a convention—is no longer comfortable, no longer a fit.
A disturbance upsets an existing convention. This is a root cause of innovation.
A disturbance has variety of its own.Unless a community has corresponding variety to cancel it,the variety in a disturbance will overwhelm the community.Variety cancels variety.
A misfit arises when a convention no longer maintainsa desired relation between a community and its context.
Misfit manifests itself as pain. It exacts a cost—physical, mental, social, or financial—on members of the community.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnovat
ion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nvention
s and
may red
uce th
eir “fi
t,” ha
stening
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribes
creativ
e dest
ruction
as “th
e
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Recognition of misfit comes from observation and experience.Research methods—such as ethnography—help.
But identifying a problem requires definition.Definitions are constructed—agreed to.They have constituencies.Thus, definition is a political act, an exercise of power.
Individuals who are prepared to innovate possess:
OptimismBelief they can improve the worldOpenness to changeConfidence to make it soTenacity, persistence to see it throughPassion, desire, even obsession
VarietyExperience, skill, and talentDomain expertiseKnowledge of other domainsUnderstanding of the processMethods and techniquesManagement, rhetorical, and political skillsPractice (Doing it a few times helps.)
They also know what is not known but necessary for progress; they understand how to find it; and they recognize who can provide that knowledge.
For insight to matter, it must be articulated—given form.
It might be aHypothesisModel or diagramOutlineScript or storySketchMock-upPrototypePilot
Innovation is a holy grail of contemporary society, and especially business. A flood of books and magazines promote it. Design firms promise it. Customers demand it. Survival, we’re told, depends on it.
But what is it? And how do we get it?
We used to ask the same questions about quality. Then Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming answered. Today, statistical process control, total quality management (TQM), kaizen, and six-sigma management are fundamental tools in business.
Organizations have become much better at managing quality. Quality has become a commodity, or at least “table stakes,” necessary but not sufficient. Now, innovation matters more—because you can’t compete on quality alone, whether as a business, a community, or a society. The next arena of global competition is innovation, but the practice of innovation remains stuck some 40 years behind the practice of quality.
Quality is largely about improving efficiency, whereas innovationis largely about improving effectiveness. Improving quality is decreasing defects. It’s about measuring. It’s making processes more efficient. It works within an existing paradigm.
Business Week design editor Bruce Nussbaum has suggested you can’t measure your way to innovation—measurement being the hallmark of quality processes. And though some six-sigma advocates disagree, Nussbaum is pointing out a fundamental difference between managing quality and managing innovation. Innovation is creating a new paradigm. It’s not getting better at playing the same game; it’s changing the rules and changing the game. Innovation is not working harder; it’s working smarter.
This poster proposes a model for innovation. It takes the form of a concept map, a series of terms and links forming propositions.
The model is built on the idea that innovation is about changing paradigms. The model situates innovation between two conven-tions. Innovation transforms old into new. It is a process—a process in which insight inspires change and creates value. The process begins when external pressure or internal decay disturbs the relation between a community and its context, a relation maintained by a convention.
The existing convention no longer “fits.” Perhaps the context changed. Or the community. Or even the convention. Someone notices the misfit. It causes stress. It creates enough friction, enough pain, to jump into people’s consciousness. Perception of misfit almost simultaneously gives rise to proposals for change,for reframing. These proposals compete for attention. Most fail to inspire, are ignored, and fade away.
The changes that survive are by definition those a community finds effective. They spread because they increase fit (gain) and lower pain or cost (delivering value).
We rarely recognize innovation while it’s happening. Instead, innovation is often a label applied after the fact, when its value is clear and a new convention has become established.
Ethnography and other research techniques may help identify opportunities for innovation. Design methods may increase the speed of generating and testing new ideas. But new ideas are still subject to natural selection (or natural destruction) in the political process or the marketplace.
Innovation remains messy. Even dangerous. Luck and chance, being at the right place at the right time, still play a role. But heightened sensitivity and persistent alertness may increase luck.
This model is not a recipe. At best it suggests ways to increase the probability of innovation. Our goal is for it to spur discussion. Our hope is that increased understanding will spur innovation and increase the greater good.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition o
f goals
. Refram
ing or
refini
ng ope
ns the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of ev
olution
—an
d desi
gn.
---
---
---
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by
as it diffuses becomes value
changeinsight
simple
iterat
ion
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
community1
1
1
2
2
2
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creatingthat is large enough gains
frames possibilities for
must be shared through
that
fails
may
lead
to n
ew
may
pro
mpt
a n
ew
may
cre
ate
a m
ultip
lier e
ffect
lead
ing
to m
ore
mot
ivat
espo
sses
s
must be proved through
help
s im
prov
e
reduces risk, encouragingreform
s relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills w
ithin a
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
convention
context(environment)
innovation
community commu
convention
context
may fail to recognize
each faces
is imbalance in
relatio
ns among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in re
lations among
preserves status quo by resisting
is a m
easure of p
ropensity f
or
aidsrequires comes from drive
pressure (external)decay (internal)
change (disturbance)
misfit (pain)
recognition (definition)
insight (seeing opportunity)preparation(immersion)
(a bit of luck)
articulation (prototyping)
demonstration (testing)evaluates
adoption (counter-change)
fit (gain)
leads to new
is reflected as increased
variety(experiences)
actions
artifacts
beliefsmay lead to
may lead to
value
individuals
innovationa model of
increases the likelihood of
Dubberly Design Office prepared this concept map as a project of the Institute for the Creative Process at the Alberta College of Art and Design. The Institute exists to focus and organize activities, enterprises, and initiatives of ACAD with regard to the cultivation of dialogue, research, and special projects that directly address the nature of the creative process and design thinking. ACAD is a leading centre for education and research, and a catalyst for creative inquiry and cultural development.
Please send comments about this model to [email protected]
Acknowledgements
Writing and design byHugh Dubberly, Nathan Felde, and Paul PangaroAdditional design bySean Durham and Ryan ReposarResearch by Satoko Kakihara, ACAD faculty Chris Frey, Wayne Giles, and Darlene Lee
Copyright © 2007
Dubberly Design Office2501 Harrison Street, #7San Francisco, CA 94110415 648 9799
Institute for the Creative Processat the Alberta College of Art + Design1407-14 Ave NWCalgary, AB CanadaT2N 4R3403 284 7670
Sponsorship
EPCOR, a founding partner of the Institute for the CreativeProcess, generously provided funding for this project.
Printed in Canada
W. Ross Ashby describes variety as a measure of information. Variety describes a system’s potential to respond to disturbances—the options it has available. Applied to communities, variety describes the experiences—the richness of language and range of cultural tools—they can bring to bear on problems.
In a stable environment, increasing efficiency makes sense. Do what you’ve been doing, but do it better and at a lower cost. That means narrowing language—decreasing variety.
In an unstable environment, pursuing efficiency may actually be dangerous. You may get better at doing the wrong thing—at doing something that no longer matters.
The key is to make sure what you produce is valuable, before you worry about making it more efficiently. Increasing effectiveness calls for increasing variety—changing perspective, bringing new people, new experience, and new language into the conversationand expanding the field of action.
Some organizations have processes by which their members build (or buy) new ideas at a small scale. The organizations vet (or select or destroy) ideas, moving a few to the next stage. They “incubate” new ideas in “hothouses” long enough to launch them into the world. Examples include (perhaps most notably) Royal Dutch Shell, some religions (such as Catholicism), venture capital firms, and technology companies such as Google.
Some communities (some ecologies) seem to have the variety and structures needed to raise the probability of innovation (within certain domains). For example, Silicon Valley, Route 128 around Boston, Austin, Research Triangle, and Seattle all currently enjoy this advantage.
Insight begins a process of restoring fit. Insight remains the most mysterious part of the innovation process. It may be irreducible, but it can be aided. Immersion within the context is almost always essential. Experience with other domains helps (by increasing variety). For example, applying patterns from other domains can help solve new problems. This is the promise of Genrich Altshuller’s system known as TRIZ.
Insight is a type of hypothesis, a form of abduction.Insight may come from juxtaposition and pattern matching.
György Polya suggests asking:What is the unknown?What are the data?What is the condition? (What are the constraints?)What is the connection between data and unknown?What is a related problem?How could you restate the problem?What could you draw to represent the problem?
No innovation arises fully formed.
Articulation provides a means of sharing an insight.Demonstration proves (or disproves) the insight’s value.Demonstration provides a basis for adoption; it is a key to creating change.
Demonstration enables evaluation. Testing discloses errors, increases understanding, and provides a basis for improvement.
Iteration is always necessary.
Of course, the convention resulting from a successful innovation differs from the convention that preceded it. Likewise, the community that exists after an innovation is likely to have changed from the community that preceded it. The context, too, is likely to have changed beyond the change which created the misfit leading to an innovation.
The scale of change varies. Many people have proposed models, for example:
Michael Geoghegan:Recognizing a new domain of inventionCreating new opportunities for discovery within the domainImproving the efficiency with which the discoveries are applied
Horst Rittel:Simple problems, where the goal is definedComplex problems, where the goal remains unclearWicked problems, where constituents cannot agree on the goal
Parrish Hanna:Tactical or incrementalStrategic or punctuatedCultural or process-oriented
Each innovation is a link between two conventions:the one it replaces and the one it becomes. An innovation is a pivot; it transforms one period into the next.
Every convention exists within a community.
A convention establishes a relation between a community and its context. It defines a way the community expects its members to behave in a given situation. It prescribes the tools they can use, even what they can think.
Every innovation has a precedent in a previous convention.
Every community exists within a context.
Context is the environment in which a community lives. To survive, a community must have a stable relationship with its environment. Maintaining that stable relationship is the purpose of conventions.
A community is a system of people who interact within an agreed set of rules—conventions.
Typically, members of a community share a common location or common interests. They may be related by birth or may come together for social or business reasons. Communities rely on individuals to provide the variety necessary for survival—to share perspective, insight, ideas, and inspiration.
Over time, new members join and existing members depart. These changes can affect the conventions the community keeps.
Entropy always increases. Resisting entropy requires energy and variety.Inevitably, both are limited.
Pressure from outside or decay inside changes the relationship between a community and its context. That relationship—formalized as a convention—is no longer comfortable, no longer a fit.
A disturbance upsets an existing convention. This is a root cause of innovation.
A disturbance has variety of its own.Unless a community has corresponding variety to cancel it,the variety in a disturbance will overwhelm the community.Variety cancels variety.
A misfit arises when a convention no longer maintainsa desired relation between a community and its context.
Misfit manifests itself as pain. It exacts a cost—physical, mental, social, or financial—on members of the community.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnovat
ion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribes
creativ
e dest
ruction
as “th
e
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Recognition of misfit comes from observation and experience.Research methods—such as ethnography—help.
But identifying a problem requires definition.Definitions are constructed—agreed to.They have constituencies.Thus, definition is a political act, an exercise of power.
Individuals who are prepared to innovate possess:
OptimismBelief they can improve the worldOpenness to changeConfidence to make it soTenacity, persistence to see it throughPassion, desire, even obsession
VarietyExperience, skill, and talentDomain expertiseKnowledge of other domainsUnderstanding of the processMethods and techniquesManagement, rhetorical, and political skillsPractice (Doing it a few times helps.)
They also know what is not known but necessary for progress; they understand how to find it; and they recognize who can provide that knowledge.
For insight to matter, it must be articulated—given form.
It might be aHypothesisModel or diagramOutlineScript or storySketchMock-upPrototypePilot
Innovation is a holy grail of contemporary society, and especially business. A flood of books and magazines promote it. Design firms promise it. Customers demand it. Survival, we’re told, depends on it.
But what is it? And how do we get it?
We used to ask the same questions about quality. Then Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming answered. Today, statistical process control, total quality management (TQM), kaizen, and six-sigma management are fundamental tools in business.
Organizations have become much better at managing quality. Quality has become a commodity, or at least “table stakes,” necessary but not sufficient. Now, innovation matters more—because you can’t compete on quality alone, whether as a business, a community, or a society. The next arena of global competition is innovation, but the practice of innovation remains stuck some 40 years behind the practice of quality.
Quality is largely about improving efficiency, whereas innovationis largely about improving effectiveness. Improving quality is decreasing defects. It’s about measuring. It’s making processes more efficient. It works within an existing paradigm.
Business Week design editor Bruce Nussbaum has suggested you can’t measure your way to innovation—measurement being the hallmark of quality processes. And though some six-sigma advocates disagree, Nussbaum is pointing out a fundamental difference between managing quality and managing innovation. Innovation is creating a new paradigm. It’s not getting better at playing the same game; it’s changing the rules and changing the game. Innovation is not working harder; it’s working smarter.
This poster proposes a model for innovation. It takes the form of a concept map, a series of terms and links forming propositions.
The model is built on the idea that innovation is about changing paradigms. The model situates innovation between two conven-tions. Innovation transforms old into new. It is a process—a process in which insight inspires change and creates value. The process begins when external pressure or internal decay disturbs the relation between a community and its context, a relation maintained by a convention.
The existing convention no longer “fits.” Perhaps the context changed. Or the community. Or even the convention. Someone notices the misfit. It causes stress. It creates enough friction, enough pain, to jump into people’s consciousness. Perception of misfit almost simultaneously gives rise to proposals for change,for reframing. These proposals compete for attention. Most fail to inspire, are ignored, and fade away.
The changes that survive are by definition those a community finds effective. They spread because they increase fit (gain) and lower pain or cost (delivering value).
We rarely recognize innovation while it’s happening. Instead, innovation is often a label applied after the fact, when its value is clear and a new convention has become established.
Ethnography and other research techniques may help identify opportunities for innovation. Design methods may increase the speed of generating and testing new ideas. But new ideas are still subject to natural selection (or natural destruction) in the political process or the marketplace.
Innovation remains messy. Even dangerous. Luck and chance, being at the right place at the right time, still play a role. But heightened sensitivity and persistent alertness may increase luck.
This model is not a recipe. At best it suggests ways to increase the probability of innovation. Our goal is for it to spur discussion. Our hope is that increased understanding will spur innovation and increase the greater good.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition o
f goals
. Refram
ing or
refini
ng ope
ns the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of ev
olution
—an
d desi
gn.
---
---
---
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by
as it diffuses becomes value
changeinsight
simple
iterat
ion
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
community1
1
1
2
2
2
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creatingthat is large enough gains
frames possibilities for
must be shared through
that
fails
may
lead
to n
ew
may
pro
mpt
a n
ew
may
cre
ate
a m
ultip
lier e
ffect
lead
ing
to m
ore
mot
ivat
espo
sses
s
must be proved through
help
s im
prov
e
reduces risk, encouragingreform
s relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills w
ithin a
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
convention
context(environment)
innovation
community commu
convention
context
may fail to recognize
each faces
is imbalance in
relatio
ns among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in re
lations among
preserves status quo by resisting
is a m
easure of p
ropensity f
or
aidsrequires comes from drive
pressure (external)decay (internal)
change (disturbance)
misfit (pain)
recognition (definition)
insight (seeing opportunity)preparation(immersion)
(a bit of luck)
articulation (prototyping)
demonstration (testing)evaluates
adoption (counter-change)
fit (gain)
leads to new
is reflected as increased
variety(experiences)
actions
artifacts
beliefsmay lead to
may lead to
value
individuals
innovationa model of
increases the likelihood of
Dubberly Design Office prepared this concept map as a project of the Institute for the Creative Process at the Alberta College of Art and Design. The Institute exists to focus and organize activities, enterprises, and initiatives of ACAD with regard to the cultivation of dialogue, research, and special projects that directly address the nature of the creative process and design thinking. ACAD is a leading centre for education and research, and a catalyst for creative inquiry and cultural development.
Please send comments about this model to [email protected]
Acknowledgements
Writing and design byHugh Dubberly, Nathan Felde, and Paul PangaroAdditional design bySean Durham and Ryan ReposarResearch by Satoko Kakihara, ACAD faculty Chris Frey, Wayne Giles, and Darlene Lee
Copyright © 2007
Dubberly Design Office2501 Harrison Street, #7San Francisco, CA 94110415 648 9799
Institute for the Creative Processat the Alberta College of Art + Design1407-14 Ave NWCalgary, AB CanadaT2N 4R3403 284 7670
Sponsorship
EPCOR, a founding partner of the Institute for the CreativeProcess, generously provided funding for this project.
Printed in Canada
W. Ross Ashby describes variety as a measure of information. Variety describes a system’s potential to respond to disturbances—the options it has available. Applied to communities, variety describes the experiences—the richness of language and range of cultural tools—they can bring to bear on problems.
In a stable environment, increasing efficiency makes sense. Do what you’ve been doing, but do it better and at a lower cost. That means narrowing language—decreasing variety.
In an unstable environment, pursuing efficiency may actually be dangerous. You may get better at doing the wrong thing—at doing something that no longer matters.
The key is to make sure what you produce is valuable, before you worry about making it more efficiently. Increasing effectiveness calls for increasing variety—changing perspective, bringing new people, new experience, and new language into the conversationand expanding the field of action.
Some organizations have processes by which their members build (or buy) new ideas at a small scale. The organizations vet (or select or destroy) ideas, moving a few to the next stage. They “incubate” new ideas in “hothouses” long enough to launch them into the world. Examples include (perhaps most notably) Royal Dutch Shell, some religions (such as Catholicism), venture capital firms, and technology companies such as Google.
Some communities (some ecologies) seem to have the variety and structures needed to raise the probability of innovation (within certain domains). For example, Silicon Valley, Route 128 around Boston, Austin, Research Triangle, and Seattle all currently enjoy this advantage.
Insight begins a process of restoring fit. Insight remains the most mysterious part of the innovation process. It may be irreducible, but it can be aided. Immersion within the context is almost always essential. Experience with other domains helps (by increasing variety). For example, applying patterns from other domains can help solve new problems. This is the promise of Genrich Altshuller’s system known as TRIZ.
Insight is a type of hypothesis, a form of abduction.Insight may come from juxtaposition and pattern matching.
György Polya suggests asking:What is the unknown?What are the data?What is the condition? (What are the constraints?)What is the connection between data and unknown?What is a related problem?How could you restate the problem?What could you draw to represent the problem?
No innovation arises fully formed.
Articulation provides a means of sharing an insight.Demonstration proves (or disproves) the insight’s value.Demonstration provides a basis for adoption; it is a key to creating change.
Demonstration enables evaluation. Testing discloses errors, increases understanding, and provides a basis for improvement.
Iteration is always necessary.
Of course, the convention resulting from a successful innovation differs from the convention that preceded it. Likewise, the community that exists after an innovation is likely to have changed from the community that preceded it. The context, too, is likely to have changed beyond the change which created the misfit leading to an innovation.
The scale of change varies. Many people have proposed models, for example:
Michael Geoghegan:Recognizing a new domain of inventionCreating new opportunities for discovery within the domainImproving the efficiency with which the discoveries are applied
Horst Rittel:Simple problems, where the goal is definedComplex problems, where the goal remains unclearWicked problems, where constituents cannot agree on the goal
Parrish Hanna:Tactical or incrementalStrategic or punctuatedCultural or process-oriented
Each innovation is a link between two conventions:the one it replaces and the one it becomes. An innovation is a pivot; it transforms one period into the next.
Every convention exists within a community.
A convention establishes a relation between a community and its context. It defines a way the community expects its members to behave in a given situation. It prescribes the tools they can use, even what they can think.
Every innovation has a precedent in a previous convention.
Every community exists within a context.
Context is the environment in which a community lives. To survive, a community must have a stable relationship with its environment. Maintaining that stable relationship is the purpose of conventions.
A community is a system of people who interact within an agreed set of rules—conventions.
Typically, members of a community share a common location or common interests. They may be related by birth or may come together for social or business reasons. Communities rely on individuals to provide the variety necessary for survival—to share perspective, insight, ideas, and inspiration.
Over time, new members join and existing members depart. These changes can affect the conventions the community keeps.
Entropy always increases. Resisting entropy requires energy and variety.Inevitably, both are limited.
Pressure from outside or decay inside changes the relationship between a community and its context. That relationship—formalized as a convention—is no longer comfortable, no longer a fit.
A disturbance upsets an existing convention. This is a root cause of innovation.
A disturbance has variety of its own.Unless a community has corresponding variety to cancel it,the variety in a disturbance will overwhelm the community.Variety cancels variety.
A misfit arises when a convention no longer maintainsa desired relation between a community and its context.
Misfit manifests itself as pain. It exacts a cost—physical, mental, social, or financial—on members of the community.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnovat
ion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribes
creativ
e dest
ruction
as “th
e
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Recognition of misfit comes from observation and experience.Research methods—such as ethnography—help.
But identifying a problem requires definition.Definitions are constructed—agreed to.They have constituencies.Thus, definition is a political act, an exercise of power.
Individuals who are prepared to innovate possess:
OptimismBelief they can improve the worldOpenness to changeConfidence to make it soTenacity, persistence to see it throughPassion, desire, even obsession
VarietyExperience, skill, and talentDomain expertiseKnowledge of other domainsUnderstanding of the processMethods and techniquesManagement, rhetorical, and political skillsPractice (Doing it a few times helps.)
They also know what is not known but necessary for progress; they understand how to find it; and they recognize who can provide that knowledge.
For insight to matter, it must be articulated—given form.
It might be aHypothesisModel or diagramOutlineScript or storySketchMock-upPrototypePilot
Innovation is a holy grail of contemporary society, and especially business. A flood of books and magazines promote it. Design firms promise it. Customers demand it. Survival, we’re told, depends on it.
But what is it? And how do we get it?
We used to ask the same questions about quality. Then Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming answered. Today, statistical process control, total quality management (TQM), kaizen, and six-sigma management are fundamental tools in business.
Organizations have become much better at managing quality. Quality has become a commodity, or at least “table stakes,” necessary but not sufficient. Now, innovation matters more—because you can’t compete on quality alone, whether as a business, a community, or a society. The next arena of global competition is innovation, but the practice of innovation remains stuck some 40 years behind the practice of quality.
Quality is largely about improving efficiency, whereas innovationis largely about improving effectiveness. Improving quality is decreasing defects. It’s about measuring. It’s making processes more efficient. It works within an existing paradigm.
Business Week design editor Bruce Nussbaum has suggested you can’t measure your way to innovation—measurement being the hallmark of quality processes. And though some six-sigma advocates disagree, Nussbaum is pointing out a fundamental difference between managing quality and managing innovation. Innovation is creating a new paradigm. It’s not getting better at playing the same game; it’s changing the rules and changing the game. Innovation is not working harder; it’s working smarter.
This poster proposes a model for innovation. It takes the form of a concept map, a series of terms and links forming propositions.
The model is built on the idea that innovation is about changing paradigms. The model situates innovation between two conven-tions. Innovation transforms old into new. It is a process—a process in which insight inspires change and creates value. The process begins when external pressure or internal decay disturbs the relation between a community and its context, a relation maintained by a convention.
The existing convention no longer “fits.” Perhaps the context changed. Or the community. Or even the convention. Someone notices the misfit. It causes stress. It creates enough friction, enough pain, to jump into people’s consciousness. Perception of misfit almost simultaneously gives rise to proposals for change,for reframing. These proposals compete for attention. Most fail to inspire, are ignored, and fade away.
The changes that survive are by definition those a community finds effective. They spread because they increase fit (gain) and lower pain or cost (delivering value).
We rarely recognize innovation while it’s happening. Instead, innovation is often a label applied after the fact, when its value is clear and a new convention has become established.
Ethnography and other research techniques may help identify opportunities for innovation. Design methods may increase the speed of generating and testing new ideas. But new ideas are still subject to natural selection (or natural destruction) in the political process or the marketplace.
Innovation remains messy. Even dangerous. Luck and chance, being at the right place at the right time, still play a role. But heightened sensitivity and persistent alertness may increase luck.
This model is not a recipe. At best it suggests ways to increase the probability of innovation. Our goal is for it to spur discussion. Our hope is that increased understanding will spur innovation and increase the greater good.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition o
f goals
. Refram
ing or
refini
ng ope
ns the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of ev
olution
—an
d desi
gn.
---
---
---
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by
as it diffuses becomes value
changeinsight
simple
iterat
ion
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
community1
1
1
2
2
2
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creatingthat is large enough gains
frames possibilities for
must be shared through
that
fails
may
lead
to n
ew
may
pro
mpt
a n
ew
may
cre
ate
a m
ultip
lier e
ffect
lead
ing
to m
ore
mot
ivat
espo
sses
s
must be proved through
help
s im
prov
e
reduces risk, encouragingreform
s relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills w
ithin a
agrees on & is shaped by
maintains relationship to
convention
context(environment)
innovation
community commu
convention
context
may fail to recognize
each faces
is imbalance in
relatio
ns among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in re
lations among
preserves status quo by resisting
is a m
easure of p
ropensity f
or
aidsrequires comes from drive
pressure (external)decay (internal)
change (disturbance)
misfit (pain)
recognition (definition)
insight (seeing opportunity)preparation(immersion)
(a bit of luck)
articulation (prototyping)
demonstration (testing)evaluates
adoption (counter-change)
fit (gain)
leads to new
is reflected as increased
variety(experiences)
actions
artifacts
beliefsmay lead to
may lead to
value
individuals
innovationa model of
increases the likelihood of
Dubberly Design Office prepared this concept map as a project of the Institute for the Creative Process at the Alberta College of Art and Design. The Institute exists to focus and organize activities, enterprises, and initiatives of ACAD with regard to the cultivation of dialogue, research, and special projects that directly address the nature of the creative process and design thinking. ACAD is a leading centre for education and research, and a catalyst for creative inquiry and cultural development.
Please send comments about this model to [email protected]
Acknowledgements
Writing and design byHugh Dubberly, Nathan Felde, and Paul PangaroAdditional design bySean Durham and Ryan ReposarResearch by Satoko Kakihara, ACAD faculty Chris Frey, Wayne Giles, and Darlene Lee
Copyright © 2007
Dubberly Design Office2501 Harrison Street, #7San Francisco, CA 94110415 648 9799
Institute for the Creative Processat the Alberta College of Art + Design1407-14 Ave NWCalgary, AB CanadaT2N 4R3403 284 7670
Sponsorship
EPCOR, a founding partner of the Institute for the CreativeProcess, generously provided funding for this project.
Printed in Canada
W. Ross Ashby describes variety as a measure of information. Variety describes a system’s potential to respond to disturbances—the options it has available. Applied to communities, variety describes the experiences—the richness of language and range of cultural tools—they can bring to bear on problems.
In a stable environment, increasing efficiency makes sense. Do what you’ve been doing, but do it better and at a lower cost. That means narrowing language—decreasing variety.
In an unstable environment, pursuing efficiency may actually be dangerous. You may get better at doing the wrong thing—at doing something that no longer matters.
The key is to make sure what you produce is valuable, before you worry about making it more efficiently. Increasing effectiveness calls for increasing variety—changing perspective, bringing new people, new experience, and new language into the conversationand expanding the field of action.
Some organizations have processes by which their members build (or buy) new ideas at a small scale. The organizations vet (or select or destroy) ideas, moving a few to the next stage. They “incubate” new ideas in “hothouses” long enough to launch them into the world. Examples include (perhaps most notably) Royal Dutch Shell, some religions (such as Catholicism), venture capital firms, and technology companies such as Google.
Some communities (some ecologies) seem to have the variety and structures needed to raise the probability of innovation (within certain domains). For example, Silicon Valley, Route 128 around Boston, Austin, Research Triangle, and Seattle all currently enjoy this advantage.
Insight begins a process of restoring fit. Insight remains the most mysterious part of the innovation process. It may be irreducible, but it can be aided. Immersion within the context is almost always essential. Experience with other domains helps (by increasing variety). For example, applying patterns from other domains can help solve new problems. This is the promise of Genrich Altshuller’s system known as TRIZ.
Insight is a type of hypothesis, a form of abduction.Insight may come from juxtaposition and pattern matching.
György Polya suggests asking:What is the unknown?What are the data?What is the condition? (What are the constraints?)What is the connection between data and unknown?What is a related problem?How could you restate the problem?What could you draw to represent the problem?
No innovation arises fully formed.
Articulation provides a means of sharing an insight.Demonstration proves (or disproves) the insight’s value.Demonstration provides a basis for adoption; it is a key to creating change.
Demonstration enables evaluation. Testing discloses errors, increases understanding, and provides a basis for improvement.
Iteration is always necessary.
Of course, the convention resulting from a successful innovation differs from the convention that preceded it. Likewise, the community that exists after an innovation is likely to have changed from the community that preceded it. The context, too, is likely to have changed beyond the change which created the misfit leading to an innovation.
The scale of change varies. Many people have proposed models, for example:
Michael Geoghegan:Recognizing a new domain of inventionCreating new opportunities for discovery within the domainImproving the efficiency with which the discoveries are applied
Horst Rittel:Simple problems, where the goal is definedComplex problems, where the goal remains unclearWicked problems, where constituents cannot agree on the goal
Parrish Hanna:Tactical or incrementalStrategic or punctuatedCultural or process-oriented
Each innovation is a link between two conventions:the one it replaces and the one it becomes. An innovation is a pivot; it transforms one period into the next.
Every convention exists within a community.
A convention establishes a relation between a community and its context. It defines a way the community expects its members to behave in a given situation. It prescribes the tools they can use, even what they can think.
Every innovation has a precedent in a previous convention.
Every community exists within a context.
Context is the environment in which a community lives. To survive, a community must have a stable relationship with its environment. Maintaining that stable relationship is the purpose of conventions.
A community is a system of people who interact within an agreed set of rules—conventions.
Typically, members of a community share a common location or common interests. They may be related by birth or may come together for social or business reasons. Communities rely on individuals to provide the variety necessary for survival—to share perspective, insight, ideas, and inspiration.
Over time, new members join and existing members depart. These changes can affect the conventions the community keeps.
Entropy always increases. Resisting entropy requires energy and variety.Inevitably, both are limited.
Pressure from outside or decay inside changes the relationship between a community and its context. That relationship—formalized as a convention—is no longer comfortable, no longer a fit.
A disturbance upsets an existing convention. This is a root cause of innovation.
A disturbance has variety of its own.Unless a community has corresponding variety to cancel it,the variety in a disturbance will overwhelm the community.Variety cancels variety.
A misfit arises when a convention no longer maintainsa desired relation between a community and its context.
Misfit manifests itself as pain. It exacts a cost—physical, mental, social, or financial—on members of the community.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnovat
ion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribes
creativ
e dest
ruction
as “th
e
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Recognition of misfit comes from observation and experience.Research methods—such as ethnography—help.
But identifying a problem requires definition.Definitions are constructed—agreed to.They have constituencies.Thus, definition is a political act, an exercise of power.
Individuals who are prepared to innovate possess:
OptimismBelief they can improve the worldOpenness to changeConfidence to make it soTenacity, persistence to see it throughPassion, desire, even obsession
VarietyExperience, skill, and talentDomain expertiseKnowledge of other domainsUnderstanding of the processMethods and techniquesManagement, rhetorical, and political skillsPractice (Doing it a few times helps.)
They also know what is not known but necessary for progress; they understand how to find it; and they recognize who can provide that knowledge.
For insight to matter, it must be articulated—given form.
It might be aHypothesisModel or diagramOutlineScript or storySketchMock-upPrototypePilot
Innovation is a holy grail of contemporary society, and especially business. A flood of books and magazines promote it. Design firms promise it. Customers demand it. Survival, we’re told, depends on it.
But what is it? And how do we get it?
We used to ask the same questions about quality. Then Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming answered. Today, statistical process control, total quality management (TQM), kaizen, and six-sigma management are fundamental tools in business.
Organizations have become much better at managing quality. Quality has become a commodity, or at least “table stakes,” necessary but not sufficient. Now, innovation matters more—because you can’t compete on quality alone, whether as a business, a community, or a society. The next arena of global competition is innovation, but the practice of innovation remains stuck some 40 years behind the practice of quality.
Quality is largely about improving efficiency, whereas innovationis largely about improving effectiveness. Improving quality is decreasing defects. It’s about measuring. It’s making processes more efficient. It works within an existing paradigm.
Business Week design editor Bruce Nussbaum has suggested you can’t measure your way to innovation—measurement being the hallmark of quality processes. And though some six-sigma advocates disagree, Nussbaum is pointing out a fundamental difference between managing quality and managing innovation. Innovation is creating a new paradigm. It’s not getting better at playing the same game; it’s changing the rules and changing the game. Innovation is not working harder; it’s working smarter.
This poster proposes a model for innovation. It takes the form of a concept map, a series of terms and links forming propositions.
The model is built on the idea that innovation is about changing paradigms. The model situates innovation between two conven-tions. Innovation transforms old into new. It is a process—a process in which insight inspires change and creates value. The process begins when external pressure or internal decay disturbs the relation between a community and its context, a relation maintained by a convention.
The existing convention no longer “fits.” Perhaps the context changed. Or the community. Or even the convention. Someone notices the misfit. It causes stress. It creates enough friction, enough pain, to jump into people’s consciousness. Perception of misfit almost simultaneously gives rise to proposals for change,for reframing. These proposals compete for attention. Most fail to inspire, are ignored, and fade away.
The changes that survive are by definition those a community finds effective. They spread because they increase fit (gain) and lower pain or cost (delivering value).
We rarely recognize innovation while it’s happening. Instead, innovation is often a label applied after the fact, when its value is clear and a new convention has become established.
Ethnography and other research techniques may help identify opportunities for innovation. Design methods may increase the speed of generating and testing new ideas. But new ideas are still subject to natural selection (or natural destruction) in the political process or the marketplace.
Innovation remains messy. Even dangerous. Luck and chance, being at the right place at the right time, still play a role. But heightened sensitivity and persistent alertness may increase luck.
This model is not a recipe. At best it suggests ways to increase the probability of innovation. Our goal is for it to spur discussion. Our hope is that increased understanding will spur innovation and increase the greater good.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition o
f goals
. Refram
ing or
refini
ng ope
ns the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of ev
olution
—an
d desi
gn.
---
---
---
convention
innovation
conventioncan be superseded by as it diffuses becomes
valuechange
insightsim
ple ite
ration
(trial &
error
)
creati
ve de
struc
tion
(unpla
nned
conse
quen
ces)
learni
ng pr
ocess
(refini
ng go
als)
desig
n proc
ess
(artific
ial evo
lution
)
com
mun
ity1 1
1
2 2
2
agrees on & is shaped by maintains relationship to
disturbs relations creating that is large enough gains frames possibilities for must be shared through
that fails may lead to new
may prompt a new
may create a multiplier effect leading to more
motivatespossess
must be proved through
helps improve
reduces risk, encouraging reforms relations creating
all deliver
inevitably lead to
if strong, raise calls for efficiency, dangerously reducing
benefit from (increase efficiency by) sharing skills within a
agrees on & is shaped by maintains relationship toconv
entio
n
cont
ext
(env
ironm
ent)
inno
vatio
n
com
mun
ityco
mm
u
conv
entio
n
cont
ext
may
fail
to re
cogn
ize
each
face
s is imbalance in relations among
pose long-term threats to any
creates new
is balance in relations amongpreserves status quo by re
sisting
is a measure of propensity for
aids
requ
ires
com
es fr
omdr
ive
pres
sure
(ext
erna
l)de
cay (
inte
rnal
)
chan
ge (d
istur
banc
e)
mis
fit (p
ain)
reco
gniti
on (d
efin
ition)
insi
ght (
seei
ng o
ppor
tuni
ty)
prep
arat
ion
(imm
ersio
n)
(a b
it of lu
ck)
artic
ulat
ion
(pro
toty
ping
)
dem
onst
ratio
n (te
stin
g)ev
alua
tes
adop
tion
(cou
nter
-cha
nge)
fit (g
ain)
lead
s to
new
is re
flect
ed a
s in
crea
sed
varie
ty(e
xper
ienc
es)
actio
ns
artif
acts
belie
fsm
ay le
ad to
may
lead
to
valu
e
indi
vidu
als
inno
vatio
na
mod
el o
f
increases the likelihood of
Dubb
erly
Desig
n Of
fice
prep
ared
this
conc
ept m
ap a
s a p
roje
ct
of th
e In
stitu
te fo
r the
Cre
ative
Pro
cess
at t
he A
lber
ta C
olle
ge o
f Ar
t and
Des
ign.
The
Inst
itute
exis
ts to
focu
s and
org
anize
act
ivitie
s, en
terp
rises
, and
initia
tives
of A
CAD
with
rega
rd to
the
cultiv
atio
n of
dia
logu
e, re
sear
ch, a
nd sp
ecia
l pro
ject
s tha
t dire
ctly
addr
ess
the
natu
re o
f the
cre
ative
pro
cess
and
des
ign
thin
king.
ACA
D is
a le
adin
g ce
ntre
for e
duca
tion
and
rese
arch
, and
a c
atal
yst f
or
crea
tive
inqu
iry a
nd c
ultu
ral d
evel
opm
ent.
Plea
se se
nd c
omm
ents
abo
ut th
is m
odel
to ic
p@ac
ad.c
a
Ackn
owle
dgem
ents
Writ
ing
and
desig
n by
Hugh
Dub
berly
, Nat
han
Feld
e, a
nd P
aul P
anga
roAd
ditio
nal d
esig
n by
Sean
Dur
ham
and
Rya
n Re
posa
rRe
sear
ch b
y Sa
toko
Kak
ihar
a, A
CAD
facu
lty C
hris
Frey
, Way
ne G
iles,
and
Darle
ne Le
e
Copy
right
© 20
07
Dubb
erly
Desig
n Of
fice
2501
Har
rison
Stre
et, #
7Sa
n Fr
anci
sco,
CA
9411
041
5 648
9799
Inst
itute
for t
he C
reat
ive P
roce
ssat
the
Albe
rta C
olle
ge o
f Art
+ De
sign
1407
-14 A
ve N
WCa
lgar
y, AB
Can
ada
T2N
4R3
403 2
84 76
70
Spon
sors
hip
EPCO
R, a
foun
ding
par
tner
of t
he In
stitu
te fo
r the
Cre
ative
Proc
ess,
gene
rous
ly pr
ovid
ed fu
ndin
g fo
r thi
s pro
ject
.
Prin
ted
in C
anad
a
W. R
oss A
shby
des
crib
es va
riety
as a
mea
sure
of in
form
atio
n.
Varie
ty d
escr
ibes
a sy
stem
’s po
tent
ial to
resp
ond
to
dist
urba
nces
—th
e op
tions
it ha
s ava
ilabl
e. A
pplie
d to
com
mun
ities,
varie
ty d
escr
ibes
the
expe
rienc
es—
the
richn
ess o
f lang
uage
and
ra
nge
of c
ultu
ral to
ols—
they
can
brin
g to
bea
r on
prob
lem
s.
In a
stab
le e
nviro
nmen
t, inc
reas
ing
effic
ienc
y mak
es se
nse.
Do
wha
t you
’ve b
een
doin
g, b
ut d
o it b
ette
r and
at a
low
er c
ost.
That
mea
ns n
arro
win
g la
ngua
ge—
decr
easin
g va
riety
.
In a
n un
stab
le e
nviro
nmen
t, pur
suin
g ef
ficie
ncy m
ay a
ctua
lly b
e da
nger
ous.
You
may
get
bet
ter a
t doi
ng th
e w
rong
thin
g—at
doi
ng
som
ethi
ng th
at n
o lo
nger
mat
ters
.
The
key i
s to
mak
e su
re w
hat y
ou p
rodu
ce is
valu
able
, bef
ore
you
wor
ry a
bout
mak
ing
it mor
e ef
ficie
ntly.
Incr
easin
g ef
fect
ivene
ss
calls
for i
ncre
asin
g va
riety
—ch
angi
ng p
ersp
ectiv
e, b
ringi
ng n
ew
peop
le, n
ew e
xper
ienc
e, a
nd n
ew la
ngua
ge in
to th
e co
nver
satio
nan
d ex
pand
ing
the
field
of a
ctio
n.
Som
e or
gani
zatio
ns h
ave
proc
esse
s by w
hich
thei
r mem
bers
bui
ld
(or b
uy) n
ew id
eas a
t a sm
all s
cale
. The
org
aniza
tions
vet (
or se
lect
or
des
troy)
idea
s, m
ovin
g a
few
to th
e ne
xt st
age.
The
y “in
cuba
te”
new
idea
s in
“hot
hous
es” l
ong
enou
gh to
laun
ch th
em in
to th
e w
orld
. Exa
mpl
es in
clud
e (p
erha
ps m
ost n
otab
ly) R
oyal
Dut
ch S
hell,
som
e re
ligio
ns (s
uch
as C
atho
licism
), ven
ture
cap
ital fi
rms,
and
tech
nolo
gy c
ompa
nies
such
as G
oogl
e.
Som
e co
mm
unitie
s (so
me
ecol
ogie
s) se
em to
hav
e th
e va
riety
and
st
ruct
ures
nee
ded
to ra
ise th
e pr
obab
ility o
f inno
vatio
n (w
ithin
ce
rtain
dom
ains
). For
exa
mpl
e, S
ilicon
Val
ley,
Rout
e 12
8 aro
und
Bost
on, A
ustin
, Res
earc
h Tr
iang
le, a
nd S
eattl
e al
l cur
rent
ly en
joy
this
adva
ntag
e.
Insig
ht b
egin
s a p
roce
ss o
f res
torin
g fit
. Insig
ht re
mai
ns th
e m
ost
mys
terio
us p
art o
f the
inno
vatio
n pr
oces
s. It
may
be
irred
ucib
le, b
ut
it can
be
aide
d. Im
mer
sion
with
in th
e co
ntex
t is a
lmos
t alw
ays
esse
ntia
l. Exp
erie
nce
with
oth
er d
omai
ns h
elps
(by i
ncre
asin
g va
riety
). For
exa
mpl
e, a
pplyi
ng p
atte
rns f
rom
oth
er d
omai
ns c
an
help
solve
new
pro
blem
s. Th
is is
the
prom
ise o
f Gen
rich
Alts
hulle
r’s
syst
em kn
own
as T
RIZ.
Insig
ht is
a ty
pe o
f hyp
othe
sis, a
form
of a
bduc
tion.
Insig
ht m
ay c
ome
from
juxt
apos
ition
and
patte
rn m
atch
ing.
Györ
gy P
olya
sugg
ests
ask
ing:
Wha
t is th
e un
know
n?W
hat a
re th
e da
ta?
Wha
t is th
e co
nditio
n? (W
hat a
re th
e co
nstra
ints
?)W
hat is
the
conn
ectio
n be
twee
n da
ta a
nd u
nkno
wn?
Wha
t is a
rela
ted
prob
lem
?Ho
w c
ould
you
rest
ate
the
prob
lem
?W
hat c
ould
you
draw
to re
pres
ent t
he p
robl
em?
No in
nova
tion
arise
s ful
ly fo
rmed
.
Artic
ulat
ion
prov
ides
a m
eans
of s
harin
g an
insig
ht.
Dem
onst
ratio
n pr
oves
(or d
ispro
ves)
the
insig
ht’s
valu
e.De
mon
stra
tion
prov
ides
a b
asis
for a
dopt
ion;
it i
s a ke
y to
crea
ting
chan
ge.
Dem
onst
ratio
n en
able
s eva
luat
ion.
Te
stin
g di
sclo
ses e
rrors
, incr
ease
s und
erst
andi
ng,
and
prov
ides
a b
asis
for i
mpr
ovem
ent.
Itera
tion
is al
way
s nec
essa
ry.
Of c
ours
e, th
e co
nven
tion
resu
lting
from
a su
cces
sful
inno
vatio
n di
ffers
from
the
conv
entio
n th
at p
rece
ded
it. Lik
ewise
, the
com
mun
ity th
at e
xists
afte
r an
inno
vatio
n is
likel
y to
have
cha
nged
fro
m th
e co
mm
unity
that
pre
cede
d it.
The
cont
ext, t
oo, is
likel
y to
hav
e ch
ange
d be
yond
the
chan
ge w
hich
cre
ated
the
misf
it le
adin
g to
an
inno
vatio
n.
The
scal
e of
cha
nge
varie
s. M
any p
eopl
e ha
ve p
ropo
sed
mod
els,
for e
xam
ple:
Mic
hael
Geo
gheg
an:
Reco
gnizi
ng a
new
dom
ain
of in
vent
ion
Crea
ting
new
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
disc
over
y with
in th
e do
mai
nIm
prov
ing
the
effic
ienc
y with
whi
ch th
e di
scov
erie
s are
app
lied
Hors
t Ritt
el:
Sim
ple
prob
lem
s, w
here
the
goal
is d
efin
edCo
mpl
ex p
robl
ems,
whe
re th
e go
al re
mai
ns u
ncle
arW
icke
d pr
oble
ms,
whe
re c
onst
ituen
ts c
anno
t agr
ee o
n th
e go
al
Parri
sh H
anna
:Ta
ctic
al o
r inc
rem
enta
lSt
rate
gic
or p
unct
uate
dCu
ltura
l or p
roce
ss-o
rient
ed
Each
inno
vatio
n is
a lin
k bet
wee
n tw
o co
nven
tions
:th
e on
e it r
epla
ces a
nd th
e on
e it b
ecom
es.
An in
nova
tion
is a
pivo
t; it t
rans
form
s one
per
iod
into
the
next
.
Ever
y con
vent
ion
exist
s with
in a
com
mun
ity.
A co
nven
tion
esta
blish
es a
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt. It
def
ines
a w
ay
the
com
mun
ity e
xpec
ts its
mem
bers
to b
ehav
e in
a g
iven
situa
tion.
It p
resc
ribes
the
tool
s th
ey c
an u
se, e
ven
wha
t the
y can
thin
k.
Ever
y inn
ovat
ion
has a
pre
cede
nt in
a
prev
ious
con
vent
ion.
Ever
y com
mun
ity e
xists
with
in a
con
text
.
Cont
ext is
the
envir
onm
ent in
whi
ch a
com
mun
ity liv
es.
To su
rvive
, a c
omm
unity
mus
t hav
e a
stab
le re
latio
nshi
p w
ith its
env
ironm
ent. M
aint
aini
ng th
at st
able
rela
tions
hip
is th
e pu
rpos
e of
con
vent
ions
.
A co
mm
unity
is a
syst
em o
f peo
ple
who
inte
ract
with
in a
n ag
reed
se
t of r
ules
—co
nven
tions
.
Typi
cally
, mem
bers
of a
com
mun
ity sh
are
a co
mm
on lo
catio
n or
co
mm
on in
tere
sts.
They
may
be
rela
ted
by b
irth
or m
ay c
ome
toge
ther
for s
ocia
l or b
usin
ess r
easo
ns. C
omm
unitie
s rel
y on
indi
vidua
ls to
pro
vide
the
varie
ty n
eces
sary
for s
urviv
al—
to sh
are
pers
pect
ive, in
sight
, idea
s, an
d in
spira
tion.
Over
time,
new
mem
bers
join
and
exis
ting
mem
bers
dep
art. T
hese
ch
ange
s can
affe
ct th
e co
nven
tions
the
com
mun
ity ke
eps.
Entro
py a
lway
s inc
reas
es.
Resis
ting
entro
py re
quire
s ene
rgy a
nd va
riety
.In
evita
bly,
both
are
limite
d.
Pres
sure
from
out
side
or d
ecay
insid
e ch
ange
s the
re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n a
com
mun
ity a
nd its
con
text
. Tha
t re
latio
nshi
p—fo
rmal
ized
as a
con
vent
ion—
is no
long
er
com
forta
ble,
no
long
er a
fit.
A di
stur
banc
e up
sets
an
exist
ing
conv
entio
n.
This
is a
root
cau
se o
f inno
vatio
n.
A di
stur
banc
e ha
s var
iety
of it
s ow
n.Un
less
a c
omm
unity
has
cor
resp
ondi
ng va
riety
to c
ance
l it,
the
varie
ty in
a d
istur
banc
e w
ill ov
erw
helm
the
com
mun
ity.
Varie
ty c
ance
ls va
riety
.
A m
isfit a
rises
whe
n a
conv
entio
n no
long
er m
aint
ains
a de
sired
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt.
Misf
it man
ifest
s its
elf a
s pai
n. It
exa
cts a
cos
t—ph
ysic
al, m
enta
l, soc
ial, o
r fin
anci
al—
on m
embe
rs
of th
e co
mm
unity
.
Conven
tions e
xist in
a web
of cu
lture. I
nnova
tion in
one p
lace
affec
ts rela
ted co
nventio
ns an
d may
reduc
e their
“fit,”
haste
ning
furthe
r inno
vation
. As th
e cycl
e con
tinues,
seco
nd- o
r third
-orde
r
or ind
irect e
ffects
are n
ot kno
wable i
n adva
nce. R
esults
can b
e
surpri
sing a
nd co
nsequ
ence
s unin
tende
d.
Josep
h Sch
umpe
ter de
scribe
s crea
tive de
struc
tion as
“the
proce
ss of i
ndust
rial m
utation
that in
cessa
ntly re
volutio
nizes
the ec
onom
ic stru
cture
from withi
n, inc
essan
tly de
stroyi
ng
the old
one, i
ncess
antly
creatin
g a ne
w one.”
Reco
gnitio
n of
misf
it com
es fr
om o
bser
vatio
n an
d ex
perie
nce.
Rese
arch
met
hods
—su
ch a
s eth
nogr
aphy
—he
lp.
But id
entif
ying
a pr
oble
m re
quire
s def
initio
n.De
finitio
ns a
re c
onst
ruct
ed—
agre
ed to
.Th
ey h
ave
cons
titue
ncie
s.Th
us, d
efin
ition
is a
politi
cal a
ct,
an e
xerc
ise o
f pow
er.
Indi
vidua
ls w
ho a
re p
repa
red
to in
nova
te p
osse
ss:
Optim
ismBe
lief t
hey c
an im
prov
e th
e w
orld
Open
ness
to c
hang
eCo
nfid
ence
to m
ake
it so
Tena
city
, per
siste
nce
to se
e it t
hrou
ghPa
ssio
n, d
esire
, eve
n ob
sess
ion
Varie
tyEx
perie
nce,
skill,
and
tale
ntDo
mai
n ex
perti
seKn
owle
dge
of o
ther
dom
ains
Unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
proc
ess
Met
hods
and
tech
niqu
esM
anag
emen
t, rhe
toric
al, a
nd p
olitic
al sk
illsPr
actic
e (D
oing
it a
few
times
hel
ps.)
They
also
know
wha
t is n
ot kn
own
but n
eces
sary
fo
r pro
gres
s; th
ey u
nder
stan
d ho
w to
find
it; an
d th
ey
reco
gnize
who
can
pro
vide
that
know
ledg
e.
For i
nsig
ht to
mat
ter,
it mus
t be
artic
ulat
ed—
give
n fo
rm.
It m
ight
be
aHy
poth
esis
Mod
el o
r dia
gram
Outlin
eSc
ript o
r sto
rySk
etch
Moc
k-up
Prot
otyp
ePi
lot
Inno
vatio
n is
a ho
ly gr
ail o
f con
tem
pora
ry so
ciet
y, an
d es
peci
ally
busin
ess.
A flo
od o
f boo
ks a
nd m
agaz
ines
pro
mot
e it.
Desig
n fir
ms
prom
ise it.
Cus
tom
ers d
eman
d it.
Surv
ival, w
e’re
told
, dep
ends
on
it.
But w
hat is
it? A
nd h
ow d
o w
e ge
t it?
We
used
to a
sk th
e sa
me
ques
tions
abo
ut q
uality
. The
n W
alte
r Sh
ewha
rt an
d Ed
war
d De
min
g an
swer
ed. T
oday
, sta
tistic
al
proc
ess c
ontro
l, tot
al q
uality
man
agem
ent (
TQM
), kai
zen,
and
six
-sig
ma
man
agem
ent a
re fu
ndam
enta
l tool
s in
busin
ess.
Orga
niza
tions
hav
e be
com
e m
uch
bette
r at m
anag
ing
qual
ity.
Qual
ity h
as b
ecom
e a
com
mod
ity, o
r at le
ast “
tabl
e st
akes
,” ne
cess
ary b
ut n
ot su
ffici
ent. N
ow, in
nova
tion
mat
ters
mor
e—be
caus
e yo
u ca
n’t c
ompe
te o
n qu
ality
alo
ne, w
heth
er a
s a
busin
ess,
a co
mm
unity
, or a
soci
ety.
The
next
are
na o
f glo
bal
com
petit
ion
is in
nova
tion,
but
the
prac
tice
of in
nova
tion
rem
ains
st
uck s
ome
40 ye
ars b
ehin
d th
e pr
actic
e of
qua
lity.
Qual
ity is
larg
ely a
bout
impr
ovin
g ef
ficie
ncy,
whe
reas
inno
vatio
nis
larg
ely a
bout
impr
ovin
g ef
fect
ivene
ss. Im
prov
ing
qual
ity is
de
crea
sing
defe
cts.
It’s a
bout
mea
surin
g. It
’s m
akin
g pr
oces
ses
mor
e ef
ficie
nt. It
wor
ks w
ithin
an
exist
ing
para
digm
.
Busin
ess W
eek d
esig
n ed
itor B
ruce
Nus
sbau
m h
as su
gges
ted
you
can’
t mea
sure
your
way
to in
nova
tion—
mea
sure
men
t bei
ng th
e ha
llmar
k of q
uality
pro
cess
es. A
nd th
ough
som
e six
-sig
ma
advo
cate
s disa
gree
, Nus
sbau
m is
poi
ntin
g ou
t a fu
ndam
enta
l di
ffere
nce
betw
een
man
agin
g qu
ality
and
man
agin
g in
nova
tion.
In
nova
tion
is cr
eatin
g a
new
par
adig
m. It
’s no
t get
ting
bette
r at
play
ing
the
sam
e ga
me;
it’s c
hang
ing
the
rule
s and
cha
ngin
g th
e ga
me.
Inno
vatio
n is
not w
orkin
g ha
rder
; it’s
wor
king
smar
ter.
This
post
er p
ropo
ses a
mod
el fo
r inn
ovat
ion.
It ta
kes t
he fo
rm o
f a
conc
ept m
ap, a
serie
s of t
erm
s and
links
form
ing
prop
ositio
ns.
The
mod
el is
bui
lt on
the
idea
that
inno
vatio
n is
abou
t cha
ngin
g pa
radi
gms.
The
mod
el si
tuat
es in
nova
tion
betw
een
two
conv
en-
tions
. Inno
vatio
n tra
nsfo
rms o
ld in
to n
ew. It
is a
pro
cess
—a
proc
ess i
n w
hich
insig
ht in
spire
s cha
nge
and
crea
tes v
alue
. Th
e pr
oces
s beg
ins w
hen
exte
rnal
pre
ssur
e or
inte
rnal
dec
ay
dist
urbs
the
rela
tion
betw
een
a co
mm
unity
and
its c
onte
xt, a
re
latio
n m
aint
aine
d by
a c
onve
ntio
n.
The
exist
ing
conv
entio
n no
long
er “f
its.”
Perh
aps t
he c
onte
xt
chan
ged.
Or t
he c
omm
unity
. Or e
ven
the
conv
entio
n. S
omeo
ne
notic
es th
e m
isfit.
It ca
uses
stre
ss. It
cre
ates
eno
ugh
frict
ion,
en
ough
pai
n, to
jum
p in
to p
eopl
e’s c
onsc
ious
ness
. Per
cept
ion
of
misf
it alm
ost s
imul
tane
ously
give
s rise
to p
ropo
sals
for c
hang
e,fo
r ref
ram
ing.
The
se p
ropo
sals
com
pete
for a
ttent
ion.
Mos
t fai
l to
insp
ire, a
re ig
nore
d, a
nd fa
de a
way
.
The
chan
ges t
hat s
urviv
e ar
e by
def
initio
n th
ose
a co
mm
unity
finds
ef
fect
ive. T
hey s
prea
d be
caus
e th
ey in
crea
se fit
(gai
n) a
nd lo
wer
pa
in o
r cos
t (de
liver
ing
valu
e).
We
rare
ly re
cogn
ize in
nova
tion
whi
le it’
s hap
peni
ng. In
stea
d,
inno
vatio
n is
ofte
n a
labe
l app
lied
afte
r the
fact
, whe
n its
valu
e is
clea
r and
a n
ew c
onve
ntio
n ha
s bec
ome
esta
blish
ed.
Ethn
ogra
phy a
nd o
ther
rese
arch
tech
niqu
es m
ay h
elp
iden
tify
oppo
rtuni
ties f
or in
nova
tion.
Des
ign
met
hods
may
incr
ease
the
spee
d of
gen
erat
ing
and
test
ing
new
idea
s. Bu
t new
idea
s are
still
subj
ect t
o na
tura
l sel
ectio
n (o
r nat
ural
des
truct
ion)
in th
e po
litica
l pr
oces
s or t
he m
arke
tpla
ce.
Inno
vatio
n re
mai
ns m
essy
. Eve
n da
nger
ous.
Luck
and
cha
nce,
be
ing
at th
e rig
ht p
lace
at t
he ri
ght t
ime,
still
play
a ro
le. B
ut
heig
hten
ed se
nsitiv
ity a
nd p
ersis
tent
ale
rtnes
s may
incr
ease
luck
.
This
mod
el is
not
a re
cipe
. At b
est it
sugg
ests
way
s to
incr
ease
th
e pr
obab
ility o
f inno
vatio
n. O
ur g
oal is
for i
t to
spur
disc
ussio
n.
Our h
ope
is th
at in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g w
ill sp
ur in
nova
tion
and
incr
ease
the
grea
ter g
ood.
Creating
varia
tion is
the fir
st mec
hanis
m
of evol
ution—
and d
esign
.
Testin
g a pr
ototyp
e may
raise
quest
ions a
bout t
he fra
ming of
a
proble
m or de
finition
of go
als. Refr
aming
or re
fining
open
s the
possi
bility t
o tryin
g othe
r app
roach
es.
Natural
destr
uction
(i. e.,
disca
rding
poorl
y
perfo
rming
varia
tions) i
s the s
econ
d
mecha
nism of
evoluti
on—
and d
esign
.
- - - - - - - - -
358NOTES ON THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP & LANGUAGE IN REGENERATING ORGANIZATIONS �
362
Like any organization,your organization is a set of conversations among people.
Like any organization,your organization needs to changeto meet the needs of a changing market.
Your organization seeks to build on previous successes— but these successesemerged from internal conversationsthat may no longer be as productiveas they once were.
For your organization to evolve effectively,it must understand the waysits customers, developers, and competitors are evolving.It can understand this evolutiononly through its ongoing relationshipswith customers, developers, and the market.
Only then can the company changein ways that better meet market needs.
Ultimately,an organization consists of conversations: who talks to whom, about what.
Each conversationis recognized, selected, and amplified(or ignored) by the system.Decisions, actions, and a sense of valid purpose grow out of these conversations.
Conversation leads to agreement. Agreement leads to transaction.
Therefore, an organization’s languageis critically important.It becomesmore than simply a means for communication. It becomesa field for action, and a way of constructing truth. It becomesthe basis for all transactions,the basis for all business.
Your organization is a living system of conversations.
Language affects, even constitutes, the ways people perceive their reality. It is the medium in which decision making and other business activities take place. Language recognizes, selects, and amplifies certain entities, activities, and relationships, while ignoring others.
The structure of an organization’s language is directly related to the structure of its culture. Culture creates language, and language shapes culture. An organization’s ability to create language is synonymous with its ability to evolve.
For more on the relationship of language to thought, see: Michel Foucault, Humberto Maturana, Benjamin Whorf, Ludwig Wittgenstein.
An organization is its language.
ON LANGUAGE
362
Like any organization,your organization is a set of conversations among people.
Like any organization,your organization needs to changeto meet the needs of a changing market.
Your organization seeks to build on previous successes— but these successesemerged from internal conversationsthat may no longer be as productiveas they once were.
For your organization to evolve effectively,it must understand the waysits customers, developers, and competitors are evolving.It can understand this evolutiononly through its ongoing relationshipswith customers, developers, and the market.
Only then can the company changein ways that better meet market needs.
Ultimately,an organization consists of conversations: who talks to whom, about what.
Each conversationis recognized, selected, and amplified(or ignored) by the system.Decisions, actions, and a sense of valid purpose grow out of these conversations.
Conversation leads to agreement. Agreement leads to transaction.
Therefore, an organization’s languageis critically important.It becomesmore than simply a means for communication. It becomesa field for action, and a way of constructing truth. It becomesthe basis for all transactions,the basis for all business.
Your organization is a living system of conversations.
Language affects, even constitutes, the ways people perceive their reality. It is the medium in which decision making and other business activities take place. Language recognizes, selects, and amplifies certain entities, activities, and relationships, while ignoring others.
The structure of an organization’s language is directly related to the structure of its culture. Culture creates language, and language shapes culture. An organization’s ability to create language is synonymous with its ability to evolve.
For more on the relationship of language to thought, see: Michel Foucault, Humberto Maturana, Benjamin Whorf, Ludwig Wittgenstein.
An organization is its language.
ON LANGUAGE
363 364
Organizations create their own internal language to solve specific problems.
This language serves as a kind of shorthand: Managers use it every day,knowing they will be clearly understood.
This internal language is designed to address the needs of the present-day business.It helps the organization’s managersanswer familiar questionsand thus increases efficiencies.
Over time, this internal languagegrows increasingly specialized—and narrow.
The organization’s internal languageis designed to help managersfacilitate present-day business—not look beyond it.
Using the internal language,managers increase efficiencies,but cannot recognize new fields of research, new discoveries, new approaches.
Like all of us,they cannot recognize their own limitations. Constrained by the previously successful language, we do not know that we do not know. Consequently, we think we know—and thus cannot learn.
Developed as a tool to increase efficiencies, the organization’s language, paradoxically, becomes a trap.
Typically, managers focus on improving their organization’s current performance. They use the organization’s language to realize efficiencies.
As an organization grows more efficient, it focuses on increasingly specific sets of problems. In similar fashion, its lexicon grows increasingly narrow.
Often, those outside of the organization will not understand its internal language. For example, to outside observers, conversation among Sun employees around issues concerning “SunShot” may seem impenetrable.
For more on language and conversation, see: Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana, Gordon Pask, Claude Shannon, Benjamin Whorf.
Narrowing language increases efficiency.
Narrowing language also increases ignorance.
Ignorant of our own ignorance, we cannot ask questions outside our own language experience. An organization’s historical language has been responsible for its success; it would seem nonsensical for decision makers to question it. As efficiencies increase, managers fail to recognize the ways in which their internal language fosters a kind of organizational myopia.
For more on language and conversation, see: Gregory Bateson, R. D. Laing, Humberto Maturana, Gordon Pask, Benjamin Whorf.
363 364
Organizations create their own internal language to solve specific problems.
This language serves as a kind of shorthand: Managers use it every day,knowing they will be clearly understood.
This internal language is designed to address the needs of the present-day business.It helps the organization’s managersanswer familiar questionsand thus increases efficiencies.
Over time, this internal languagegrows increasingly specialized—and narrow.
The organization’s internal languageis designed to help managersfacilitate present-day business—not look beyond it.
Using the internal language,managers increase efficiencies,but cannot recognize new fields of research, new discoveries, new approaches.
Like all of us,they cannot recognize their own limitations. Constrained by the previously successful language, we do not know that we do not know. Consequently, we think we know—and thus cannot learn.
Developed as a tool to increase efficiencies, the organization’s language, paradoxically, becomes a trap.
Typically, managers focus on improving their organization’s current performance. They use the organization’s language to realize efficiencies.
As an organization grows more efficient, it focuses on increasingly specific sets of problems. In similar fashion, its lexicon grows increasingly narrow.
Often, those outside of the organization will not understand its internal language. For example, to outside observers, conversation among Sun employees around issues concerning “SunShot” may seem impenetrable.
For more on language and conversation, see: Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana, Gordon Pask, Claude Shannon, Benjamin Whorf.
Narrowing language increases efficiency.
Narrowing language also increases ignorance.
Ignorant of our own ignorance, we cannot ask questions outside our own language experience. An organization’s historical language has been responsible for its success; it would seem nonsensical for decision makers to question it. As efficiencies increase, managers fail to recognize the ways in which their internal language fosters a kind of organizational myopia.
For more on language and conversation, see: Gregory Bateson, R. D. Laing, Humberto Maturana, Gordon Pask, Benjamin Whorf.
364
The conversations necessaryfor creating fundamental changedo not come naturally.They pose questions that cannot be understood in the organization’s present language.
The conversations necessaryfor generating new opportunitiescome from outside the system.Their language has a different history.It is often technically and intellectually demanding. Consequently, it is often dismissed.
For an organization to survive,it must be able to acquirenew, relevant language domains.
To support an organization’s future viability, effective decision makers actively introduce change into the system.
They do so by generating new language that appropriate groups in the organization come to understand and embrace.
This new language does not overtly challenge the pre-existing, efficient system,but rather creates new distinctionsand supportive relationships.
In this way, decision makers act as interlocutors and incubators of systemic change.
To maintain an organization’s co-evolutionary currency, decision makers must generate the capacity to recognize new domains of discovery, and be able to translate those into new language that reflects the company’s self-interest. These activities are absolutely necessary if any new endeavor is to be successful.
The decision maker must provide adequate resources for the incubation of systemic change—even though the specific incubation activities may not easily be understood.
For more on power and language, see: Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas.
To regenerate,an organization creates a new language.
To avoid being trapped in obsolescent thinking, organizations change their language. A generative organization, aware of the importance of asking unnatural questions, deliberately creates new distinctions and supportive relationships in which new language domains arise.
“The problem is not changing people’s consciousnesses,” stated Michel Foucault, “but the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth.” Change the language, change the parameters for discourse, and you change the organization.
Language creation may be thought of as a co-evolutionary process. New language may be created through changing relationships, rather than by overtly confronting an organization’s power structure.
For more on power, language, and organizations, see: Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas.
Expanding language increases opportunity.
364
The conversations necessaryfor creating fundamental changedo not come naturally.They pose questions that cannot be understood in the organization’s present language.
The conversations necessaryfor generating new opportunitiescome from outside the system.Their language has a different history.It is often technically and intellectually demanding. Consequently, it is often dismissed.
For an organization to survive,it must be able to acquirenew, relevant language domains.
To support an organization’s future viability, effective decision makers actively introduce change into the system.
They do so by generating new language that appropriate groups in the organization come to understand and embrace.
This new language does not overtly challenge the pre-existing, efficient system,but rather creates new distinctionsand supportive relationships.
In this way, decision makers act as interlocutors and incubators of systemic change.
To maintain an organization’s co-evolutionary currency, decision makers must generate the capacity to recognize new domains of discovery, and be able to translate those into new language that reflects the company’s self-interest. These activities are absolutely necessary if any new endeavor is to be successful.
The decision maker must provide adequate resources for the incubation of systemic change—even though the specific incubation activities may not easily be understood.
For more on power and language, see: Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas.
To regenerate,an organization creates a new language.
To avoid being trapped in obsolescent thinking, organizations change their language. A generative organization, aware of the importance of asking unnatural questions, deliberately creates new distinctions and supportive relationships in which new language domains arise.
“The problem is not changing people’s consciousnesses,” stated Michel Foucault, “but the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth.” Change the language, change the parameters for discourse, and you change the organization.
Language creation may be thought of as a co-evolutionary process. New language may be created through changing relationships, rather than by overtly confronting an organization’s power structure.
For more on power, language, and organizations, see: Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas.
Expanding language increases opportunity.
366
Like any organization,your organization has its own internal language.Like any language, it is a field for action, a way of constructing truth,a basis for transaction and business.
To regenerate itself,your organization must first recognize the limitationsinherent in its current language.Then it must seek out new language domains,and translate them into conversationsthat the organization may understand and embrace.
When initiated by management,this process is highly specific.It requires a deliberate, organized, dedicated search for new classes of inputinto the organization’s language.
Your organization must generate the specific means to converse about new research, discoveries, and approaches in ways that help the organizationconsider future opportunities.
Leadership is not a property of a person. Leadership has little to do with personality type.
Leadership is the reduction of uncertainty in an organization.It comes from clear messages,which lead to focused actionsthat cannot easily be misinterpreted. It comes from developing channels for continuous feedback.
All these characteristics reduce cost and stress to the individual working in the organization.
Your organization must create new language.
Leadership is not wisdom, personal charisma, or will-to-power. It is a condition that arises when clarity of purpose (which permits unambiguous action) exists within the organization.
Multiple venues for feedback into the system are a necessary condition for its growth. Therefore, back channels must carry a variety of information.
Leadership must not be confused with the role of manager. Managers are a class of decision makers in the organization; leadership is a condition of the organization.
For more on cybernetics and leadership, see: Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana.
Leadershipis a conditionof an organization.
ON LEADERSHIP
366
Like any organization,your organization has its own internal language.Like any language, it is a field for action, a way of constructing truth,a basis for transaction and business.
To regenerate itself,your organization must first recognize the limitationsinherent in its current language.Then it must seek out new language domains,and translate them into conversationsthat the organization may understand and embrace.
When initiated by management,this process is highly specific.It requires a deliberate, organized, dedicated search for new classes of inputinto the organization’s language.
Your organization must generate the specific means to converse about new research, discoveries, and approaches in ways that help the organizationconsider future opportunities.
Leadership is not a property of a person. Leadership has little to do with personality type.
Leadership is the reduction of uncertainty in an organization.It comes from clear messages,which lead to focused actionsthat cannot easily be misinterpreted. It comes from developing channels for continuous feedback.
All these characteristics reduce cost and stress to the individual working in the organization.
Your organization must create new language.
Leadership is not wisdom, personal charisma, or will-to-power. It is a condition that arises when clarity of purpose (which permits unambiguous action) exists within the organization.
Multiple venues for feedback into the system are a necessary condition for its growth. Therefore, back channels must carry a variety of information.
Leadership must not be confused with the role of manager. Managers are a class of decision makers in the organization; leadership is a condition of the organization.
For more on cybernetics and leadership, see: Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana.
Leadershipis a conditionof an organization.
ON LEADERSHIP
367 368
When clarity and validity of purposeexist within the organization,the feeling of ambiguity decreases.Stress and cost to the system are lowered. Uncertainty is reduced.
Those working in the system perceivean expansion of personal potentialand increased security.As they become aware of opportunities for growth, they participate more openly in the system. Feedback increases.
Leaders reduce uncertainty,give clear and meaningful messages,and provide opportunities to actin ways that cannot easily be misinterpreted.
Managers understand the organization’s past behavior. But this knowledge,and the language that accompanies it,limit their visionof the organization’s potential future state.
Using the language of the past,managers may try to provide a vision for the future. But it is an old future—a memory of what the future could be.
Managers may strive for fundamental change,but their language prevents them from achieving it.
In cybernetic terms, leadership may be thought of as the ability of a regulator to extrapolate the behavior of the system, and act in anticipation of its future state.
The organization’s everyday decision makers (i.e., its managers) act to ensure the organization’s future viability. But they are limited by their language, which views the future in terms of entities and activities successful in the past. Hence, the managers’ future vision will be a retelling of the past, using old language. It will not be evolutionarily current.
For more on cybernetics, leadership, and anticipation, see: W. Ross Ashby, Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana.
Past language limits future vision.
Within the organization, clarity of purpose leads to unambiguous action, resulting in lower systemic cost. A sense of valid purpose creates an expansion in personal potential, or ‘ego space’, which reduces stress.
As people grow more comfortable, they communicate more. A back channel grows, informing clarity and validity of purpose, and completing a feedback loop.
Uncertainty arises from ambiguity, which increases both cost and stress to the system. As uncertainty and ambiguity increase, ‘ego space’ shrinks. The entire environment is affected, as those in the system are much less likely to provide effective feedback.
Political philosopher Jürgen Habermas defines the ways social systems legitimize their rule, justify their right to power, and promote their authority as ‘legitimation’. If legitimation is not commensurate with an organization’s de facto legitimacy, a ‘legitimation crisis’ occurs, resulting in upheaval and change.
For more on conditions for system survival, see: W. Ross Ashby, Heinz von Foerster, Jürgen Habermas.
Leadershipis the reduction of uncertainty.
367 368
When clarity and validity of purposeexist within the organization,the feeling of ambiguity decreases.Stress and cost to the system are lowered. Uncertainty is reduced.
Those working in the system perceivean expansion of personal potentialand increased security.As they become aware of opportunities for growth, they participate more openly in the system. Feedback increases.
Leaders reduce uncertainty,give clear and meaningful messages,and provide opportunities to actin ways that cannot easily be misinterpreted.
Managers understand the organization’s past behavior. But this knowledge,and the language that accompanies it,limit their visionof the organization’s potential future state.
Using the language of the past,managers may try to provide a vision for the future. But it is an old future—a memory of what the future could be.
Managers may strive for fundamental change,but their language prevents them from achieving it.
In cybernetic terms, leadership may be thought of as the ability of a regulator to extrapolate the behavior of the system, and act in anticipation of its future state.
The organization’s everyday decision makers (i.e., its managers) act to ensure the organization’s future viability. But they are limited by their language, which views the future in terms of entities and activities successful in the past. Hence, the managers’ future vision will be a retelling of the past, using old language. It will not be evolutionarily current.
For more on cybernetics, leadership, and anticipation, see: W. Ross Ashby, Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana.
Past language limits future vision.
Within the organization, clarity of purpose leads to unambiguous action, resulting in lower systemic cost. A sense of valid purpose creates an expansion in personal potential, or ‘ego space’, which reduces stress.
As people grow more comfortable, they communicate more. A back channel grows, informing clarity and validity of purpose, and completing a feedback loop.
Uncertainty arises from ambiguity, which increases both cost and stress to the system. As uncertainty and ambiguity increase, ‘ego space’ shrinks. The entire environment is affected, as those in the system are much less likely to provide effective feedback.
Political philosopher Jürgen Habermas defines the ways social systems legitimize their rule, justify their right to power, and promote their authority as ‘legitimation’. If legitimation is not commensurate with an organization’s de facto legitimacy, a ‘legitimation crisis’ occurs, resulting in upheaval and change.
For more on conditions for system survival, see: W. Ross Ashby, Heinz von Foerster, Jürgen Habermas.
Leadershipis the reduction of uncertainty.
Managers’ reaction to Entrepreneurs’ language:
“Don’t distract me with future problems.”
“That’s a waste of time.”
“Stop taking resources away from what’s important.”
Entrepreneurs’ reaction to Managers’ language:
“You are stuck in the past.”
“What you want to do is no longer relevant.”
“Stop taking resources away from what’s important.”
369 370
Like all organizations,your organization must recognizetwo businesses: present and future.
Some within your organizationare tasked with improving performance of the present-day business.They use the current languageto increase efficiencies.
Others are tasked with generating opportunities for your organization’s future business.They recognize new domains of inventionand translate them into new languagethat may lead to profitable new endeavors.
For your organization to learn and grow,both kinds of people are necessary.
Successful organizationssupport at least three orders of creativity.
They provide resources to recognize invention, which opens up new domains of language.In these new domains,profitable discoveries may be made.
They provide the necessary conditions for discovering and marketing products and servicesthat emerge from these new domains.
Then, they develop more cost-effective ways of producing and deliveringthese new products and services.
Any invention may result in multiple discoveries; any discovery may be brought to market more efficiently. Organizations co-evolve with the marketplace only if they remain continually attentive to invention and discovery. Internal organizational development results in greater efficiencies.
For example: Maxwell created a new domain by positing the existence of radio waves. Hertz subsequently discovered them via experiment. From that pioneering work, Marconi, Sarnoff, et al., built the business of radio.
History provides many cautionary tales of creative failure in organizations. Some did not recognize the importance of a new field or discipline (e.g., Kodak, Polaroid); others could not permit or sanction discussion of new products or processes as a source of profit (e.g., Xerox PARC).
Though organizations may tout the importance of creativity, true invention is rarely recognized, and even more rarely exploited.
Creativity =Recognizing invention. Profiting from discoveries. Developing efficiencies.
Your organization needsdifferent languages to discuss its present and future business.
ON CHANGE
369 370
Like all organizations,your organization must recognizetwo businesses: present and future.
Some within your organizationare tasked with improving performance of the present-day business.They use the current languageto increase efficiencies.
Others are tasked with generating opportunities for your organization’s future business.They recognize new domains of inventionand translate them into new languagethat may lead to profitable new endeavors.
For your organization to learn and grow,both kinds of people are necessary.
Successful organizationssupport at least three orders of creativity.
They provide resources to recognize invention, which opens up new domains of language.In these new domains,profitable discoveries may be made.
They provide the necessary conditions for discovering and marketing products and servicesthat emerge from these new domains.
Then, they develop more cost-effective ways of producing and deliveringthese new products and services.
Any invention may result in multiple discoveries; any discovery may be brought to market more efficiently. Organizations co-evolve with the marketplace only if they remain continually attentive to invention and discovery. Internal organizational development results in greater efficiencies.
For example: Maxwell created a new domain by positing the existence of radio waves. Hertz subsequently discovered them via experiment. From that pioneering work, Marconi, Sarnoff, et al., built the business of radio.
History provides many cautionary tales of creative failure in organizations. Some did not recognize the importance of a new field or discipline (e.g., Kodak, Polaroid); others could not permit or sanction discussion of new products or processes as a source of profit (e.g., Xerox PARC).
Though organizations may tout the importance of creativity, true invention is rarely recognized, and even more rarely exploited.
Creativity =Recognizing invention. Profiting from discoveries. Developing efficiencies.
Your organization needsdifferent languages to discuss its present and future business.
ON CHANGE
Creating “New Language” is the single most important means to innovation that will be:- transformational- disruptive- a generator of value in today’s
and tomorrow’s markets.
369 370
Like all organizations,your organization must recognizetwo businesses: present and future.
Some within your organizationare tasked with improving performance of the present-day business.They use the current languageto increase efficiencies.
Others are tasked with generating opportunities for your organization’s future business.They recognize new domains of inventionand translate them into new languagethat may lead to profitable new endeavors.
For your organization to learn and grow,both kinds of people are necessary.
Successful organizationssupport at least three orders of creativity.
They provide resources to recognize invention, which opens up new domains of language.In these new domains,profitable discoveries may be made.
They provide the necessary conditions for discovering and marketing products and servicesthat emerge from these new domains.
Then, they develop more cost-effective ways of producing and deliveringthese new products and services.
Any invention may result in multiple discoveries; any discovery may be brought to market more efficiently. Organizations co-evolve with the marketplace only if they remain continually attentive to invention and discovery. Internal organizational development results in greater efficiencies.
For example: Maxwell created a new domain by positing the existence of radio waves. Hertz subsequently discovered them via experiment. From that pioneering work, Marconi, Sarnoff, et al., built the business of radio.
History provides many cautionary tales of creative failure in organizations. Some did not recognize the importance of a new field or discipline (e.g., Kodak, Polaroid); others could not permit or sanction discussion of new products or processes as a source of profit (e.g., Xerox PARC).
Though organizations may tout the importance of creativity, true invention is rarely recognized, and even more rarely exploited.
Creativity =Recognizing invention. Profiting from discoveries. Developing efficiencies.
Your organization needsdifferent languages to discuss its present and future business.
ON CHANGE
369 370
Like all organizations,your organization must recognizetwo businesses: present and future.
Some within your organizationare tasked with improving performance of the present-day business.They use the current languageto increase efficiencies.
Others are tasked with generating opportunities for your organization’s future business.They recognize new domains of inventionand translate them into new languagethat may lead to profitable new endeavors.
For your organization to learn and grow,both kinds of people are necessary.
Successful organizationssupport at least three orders of creativity.
They provide resources to recognize invention, which opens up new domains of language.In these new domains,profitable discoveries may be made.
They provide the necessary conditions for discovering and marketing products and servicesthat emerge from these new domains.
Then, they develop more cost-effective ways of producing and deliveringthese new products and services.
Any invention may result in multiple discoveries; any discovery may be brought to market more efficiently. Organizations co-evolve with the marketplace only if they remain continually attentive to invention and discovery. Internal organizational development results in greater efficiencies.
For example: Maxwell created a new domain by positing the existence of radio waves. Hertz subsequently discovered them via experiment. From that pioneering work, Marconi, Sarnoff, et al., built the business of radio.
History provides many cautionary tales of creative failure in organizations. Some did not recognize the importance of a new field or discipline (e.g., Kodak, Polaroid); others could not permit or sanction discussion of new products or processes as a source of profit (e.g., Xerox PARC).
Though organizations may tout the importance of creativity, true invention is rarely recognized, and even more rarely exploited.
Creativity =Recognizing invention. Profiting from discoveries. Developing efficiencies.
Your organization needsdifferent languages to discuss its present and future business.
ON CHANGE
Creating “New Language” is the single most important means to innovation that will be:- transformational- disruptive- a generator of value in today’s
and tomorrow’s markets.
New Language can aided by:- isolating conversations for future
business from today’s business- resourcing productive, evolving
conversations—not all conversations- designing “focusing problems”.
369 370
Like all organizations,your organization must recognizetwo businesses: present and future.
Some within your organizationare tasked with improving performance of the present-day business.They use the current languageto increase efficiencies.
Others are tasked with generating opportunities for your organization’s future business.They recognize new domains of inventionand translate them into new languagethat may lead to profitable new endeavors.
For your organization to learn and grow,both kinds of people are necessary.
Successful organizationssupport at least three orders of creativity.
They provide resources to recognize invention, which opens up new domains of language.In these new domains,profitable discoveries may be made.
They provide the necessary conditions for discovering and marketing products and servicesthat emerge from these new domains.
Then, they develop more cost-effective ways of producing and deliveringthese new products and services.
Any invention may result in multiple discoveries; any discovery may be brought to market more efficiently. Organizations co-evolve with the marketplace only if they remain continually attentive to invention and discovery. Internal organizational development results in greater efficiencies.
For example: Maxwell created a new domain by positing the existence of radio waves. Hertz subsequently discovered them via experiment. From that pioneering work, Marconi, Sarnoff, et al., built the business of radio.
History provides many cautionary tales of creative failure in organizations. Some did not recognize the importance of a new field or discipline (e.g., Kodak, Polaroid); others could not permit or sanction discussion of new products or processes as a source of profit (e.g., Xerox PARC).
Though organizations may tout the importance of creativity, true invention is rarely recognized, and even more rarely exploited.
Creativity =Recognizing invention. Profiting from discoveries. Developing efficiencies.
Your organization needsdifferent languages to discuss its present and future business.
ON CHANGE
369 370
Like all organizations,your organization must recognizetwo businesses: present and future.
Some within your organizationare tasked with improving performance of the present-day business.They use the current languageto increase efficiencies.
Others are tasked with generating opportunities for your organization’s future business.They recognize new domains of inventionand translate them into new languagethat may lead to profitable new endeavors.
For your organization to learn and grow,both kinds of people are necessary.
Successful organizationssupport at least three orders of creativity.
They provide resources to recognize invention, which opens up new domains of language.In these new domains,profitable discoveries may be made.
They provide the necessary conditions for discovering and marketing products and servicesthat emerge from these new domains.
Then, they develop more cost-effective ways of producing and deliveringthese new products and services.
Any invention may result in multiple discoveries; any discovery may be brought to market more efficiently. Organizations co-evolve with the marketplace only if they remain continually attentive to invention and discovery. Internal organizational development results in greater efficiencies.
For example: Maxwell created a new domain by positing the existence of radio waves. Hertz subsequently discovered them via experiment. From that pioneering work, Marconi, Sarnoff, et al., built the business of radio.
History provides many cautionary tales of creative failure in organizations. Some did not recognize the importance of a new field or discipline (e.g., Kodak, Polaroid); others could not permit or sanction discussion of new products or processes as a source of profit (e.g., Xerox PARC).
Though organizations may tout the importance of creativity, true invention is rarely recognized, and even more rarely exploited.
Creativity =Recognizing invention. Profiting from discoveries. Developing efficiencies.
Your organization needsdifferent languages to discuss its present and future business.
ON CHANGE
“Focusing Problems”:- must be consistent with our DNA- have access to new domains of
expertise, beyond the current organization
- engage an initial set of willing individuals
- must teach the business as a whole- have economic potential
- must lower uncertainty (risk) in a market, or
- must lower the effort for a person to reach a goal
- participate in the “new economy” by creating value from networks of information flow rather than materials and products.
INNOVATION Creative Conditions for Innovation
- protect tomorrow’s business from today’s business
- create new language for tomorrow’s business - separately resource creation
of new language - design a focusing problem - seed team from those who are
most eager & capable - bring necessary expertise to the
team, from outside if necessary.
why is it so elusive?
and what is it, anyway?
what strategies might work?
how should we distribute resources?
how can we lower risk?
how can we increase the likelihood?
Thank you.
[email protected] pangaro.com/innovation
Technology and Innovation Exchange BASF September 18, 2015