INNOVATION has become a popular subject on the business bookshelf over the past few years. But few of the new titles have offered much in the way of vision, insight or practical guidance. Two recent works—Charles Leadbeater’s “We-Think” (Profile Books) and “The New Age of Innovation”, by C.K Prahalad and M.S. Krishnan (McGraw-Hill)—are an exception to that rule. That each of them manages to say something potentially useful makes them worthy of special attention.

“We-Think” is the more radical of the pair. After a spell in journalism, Mr Leadbeater, a Briton, reinvented himself as a management thinker and as an adviser to governments via Demos, the New Labourite think-tank. There is a predictable whiff of third-wayism around his book’s central point: that internet-based, mass collaboration is mounting a serious challenge to the traditional, hierarchical company—and thus to the very organisation of capital in society.

“We-Think” innovation supposedly unites amateur and expert volunteers in such a way as to enable them produce goods and services that are not only free but often superior to those provided by corporations. Moreover, its acolytes seem happier than the wage-slaves who belong to the typical firm: “Well-being will come to depend less on what we own and consume and more on what we can share with others and create together,” says Mr Leadbeater, adding that this approach is “as effective a base for productive activity as private ownership”.

Such utopianism can provoke cynicism. Wikipedia is cited as a successful example of such new-fangled collaboration, and supposedly it outperforms traditional encyclopedias not only in its raw volume but also in accuracy. Really? And even if it is true that the “We-Think” approach is, as this book argues, spreading rapidly in business, politics, education, health care and more, unsuccessful collaborations abound, interspersed between the gems of the open-source software movement Mr Leadbeater so admires. No small number of Wikipedia entries testify to this sad fact, however useful the whole thing may be.

Read more . . .

A couple of very different perspectives . . . well worth reading - IT

STEVE WOZNIAK built the original Apple I to share with his friends at the Homebrew Computer Club, but it was his business partner Steve Jobs who had the insight that there might be a market for such a contraption. Indeed, for decades, Silicon Valley has been defined by the tension between the technologist’s urge to share information and the industrialist’s incentive to profit.

Now a new style of “hybrid” technology organization is emerging that is trying to define a path between the nonprofit world and traditional for-profit ventures.

They’re often referred to as “social enterprises” because they pursue social missions instead of profits. But unlike most nonprofit groups, these organizations generate a sustainable source of revenue and do not rely on philanthropy. Earnings are retained and reinvested rather than being distributed to shareholders.

The new companies, like thousands of Silicon Valley start-ups before them, typically begin as small groups of intensely motivated people dedicated to the goal of building a product or service.

Read more . . .

It may be hard to believe that watching Tyra Banks drive aspiring models to the breaking point can provide insight into how to accelerate technological change.

Well, pinch yourself.

Popular reality shows indeed provide a way to understand the logic behind a new wave of contests in technological innovation. Both types are driven by head-to-head competition among unknowns. And the winner takes all — and is celebrated in the process.

Read more . . . 

The fact that all three of these epiphany stories are pure fiction stops us short. As humans, we want to believe that creativity and innovation come in flashes of pure brilliance, with great thunderclaps and echoing ahas. Innovators and other creative types, we believe, stand apart from the crowd, wielding secrets and magical talents beyond the rest of us.

Balderdash. Epiphany has little to do with either creativity or innovation. Instead, innovation is a slow process of accretion, building small insight upon interesting fact upon tried-and-true process. Just as an oyster wraps layer upon layer of nacre atop an offending piece of sand, ultimately yielding a pearl, innovation percolates within hard work over time.

Read more . . .