Factors in High-Impact Innovation - Term Paper Example

Factors in High-Impact Innovation This paper will explore Jewke’s research findings (Jewkes) on high-impact innovation, with reference to the importance of individual vs team approaches, and individuals or small enterprise vs large structured enterprise approaches to stimulating high-impact innovation. This paper will consider application of these findings to modern high-impact innovations, with a view toward noting compatibilities and incompatibilities between Jewke’s 1958 findings and their application to more recent innovations. A theory will then be proposed to account for these factors. Jewkes contextualized his research by noting the underlying mythology about high-impact innovation, which is basically that it requires a lot of manpower, a lot of resources, a lot of money and fancy equipment, and complex bureaucratic support (Jewkes). While not proving the inverse of this notion, his findings indicated more variability than popular assumptions support. In examining an impressive range of high-impact innovations, more than half were done by individuals, working independently and with few resources, either in isolation or within an organization in which they had freedom to experiment and analyze on their own initiative without having to cooperate in a team (Jewkes). Inventing can be a group process, of course, but the kind of individuals who contributed some of the most important discoveries and basic products of the 19th and 20th centuries were not even assigned to a project to do so and, in various intriguing cases, were not even formally qualified in the area they explored, discovered or invented within. Sometimes it was an accident and other times individuals were pursuing interests rather than careers. (Jewkes) Furthermore, it seems that many such individuals are not people who negotiate a career field and social skills that would endear them to a team or get them appointed to a formal position in the area to which they greatly contributed. They are often people who question every assumption, however consensual (Jewkes). They are eccentric and want to be left alone to explore their own curiosity. Many such individuals can be characterized as loners. The work of inventing has private elements to it. Thinking and creative “messing around” with ideas and materials needs a climate of unconstrained thinking, uninterrupte3d reflection and working autonomy. It can call forth heroic effort. The group dynamics of a team can constrain thinking and redirect creative ideas, or even humiliate them. Cooperation may overly-structure the process and conflict may weaken it. Jewkes notes that the human mind, working alone, can organize and synthesize ideas far more efficiently than a team. There is a loss of creative power when the individual has to adjust to team members. Perhaps these are clues to why so many initial innovations came from lone individuals (Jewkes). Jewkes distinguishes between initial pioneering discoveries and inventions and the development of those discoveries and inventions (Jewkes). Development will generally benefit from the resources and monetary investment, as well as additional input and expertise that can be found in a university setting or in a larger organization. While inspiration and exploration is often initially a private matter, development and exploitation is often a more cooperative and planned one. Some stunning chemical innovations were accomplished by General Motors (Freon refrigerant and tetraethyl lead), but their pattern was more typical of the lone hero, since they are not a chemical company, but a motor engineering company, and since their innovation involved an element of chance (Jewkes). Large companies have contributed significant innovations out of strong research programs, maybe because research itself has a private, lone hero aspect which can be done with a certain amount of autonomy by an individual or a small team, and merely funded and later expanded by the larger organization. Large organizations want stability, not necessarily risk. They are slow to accept change and tend to take small, safe steps (Jewkes). The larger the organization, the greater is the obstacle for creative innovation. Jewkes pointed out that although Russia has a rich history of innovative contribution, not a single important innovation occurred there after the revolution (Jewkes). I suspect that this is due to the bulky bureaucratic system that came to power in Russia, and the forced conformity and cooperative ideology of the Communist party, which acted as a deterrent to innovative ideas. In the case of any such ideas presenting themselves, no doubt they were quickly disempowered through ridicule or overwhelmed by bureaucratic entanglement and attention. The innovative contributions of small companies are also various, yet with familiar landmarks. Some sheltered innovative loners or small innovative teams. Some contributed innovations far outside their specialty field. The smaller the organization, the less creative power is lost and the more quality will be valued over quantity, in the processing of innovative contribution. The Apple Computer history carries themes familiar to Jewkes, although he did this study long before. The founders were young and started the business with very sketchy resources, in the garage. Although it was a team effort, Wozniak and Jobs were close friends and compatible in their strengths. This likely kept conflict to a minimum and enabled private arenas of semi-autonomy. They had a mentor, who supplied financial and other assistance, but they had no organization or university behind them. Wozniak, in fact, worked at Hewlitt-Packard and building computers was a spare time pursuit. Jobs worked at Atari. Neither had completed a college degree. Neither formally fit into the mainstream academic culture around them (mgt245 module). Jobs and Wozniak invented the personal computer (idea) under a partnership, but then formed a full corporation for development, another familiar pattern. They accepted outside help for funding. Wozniak took pride in building systems and solving problems with minimal hardware (mgt245 module). Below is a table to compare six cases on variables identified by Jewkes. Few Re-sources Hero Inno-vators Autonomy at Early Stage Outsiders for Dev’t Idea Team Size Strong Reliance on Intuition Pleasure Motivation Accident Apple X X X X 2 X X Firefox X X X 2 X X Flickr X X X X 3 X X X CraigsList X X X X 1 X X X PayPal X X 2 X X X Alexa X X X X 2 (Jewkes) (mgt245 module) The categories in the table above do not represent all the various elements in common or distinct by comparison with the other companies. The table shows only the salient items noted by Jewkes . To merely recount those items for each company, as I did for Apple, will ultimately lead nowhere in an analysis. What is needed is a comparative table. From this table, we can notice that Flickr and Craig’s List are characterized by having each trait in common (except number of innovators), while Alexa has the fewest traits in common with the other five cases. Apple Computer has nearly everything in common with Flickr and Craigs List. Each of the case companies had between one and three original innovators. The company with three, Flickr, included a married couple and a friend. Craig was the only lone innovator (mgt245 module). The traits that every company had in common were two that Jewkes emphasized in his article: innovator autonomy at the invention stage and outsiders brought in for developing the product (Jewkes). Five out of six innovators mentioned pleasure motivation and a reliance on intuition (mgt245 module). Jewkes also mentioned that some innovators had a lucky accident that led to the product (Jewkes). With these six cases, this was true for half of them. Four out of six have in common struggling with inadequate resources (mgt245 module). The data on modern innovators supports Jewke’s findings. A theory suggests itself to me, in this data. The theory explains the role of individuals/small groups and the role of large teams/organizations in promoting the innovation effort. Within us is wholeness, a balance which, if not blocked or gravely damaged, will naturally unfurl and rebalance. Based on Jewke’s findings and on the data tracked with these six case companies, I understand the application of this theory to business. Each of the high-impact innovators, in these six companies, and no doubt in the companies discussed by Jewke’s, needs to have a supportive but non-interfering context in which to self-actualize. Specifically, they need autonomy, a time to invite out what is inside, without others trying to force it out or force it back in. They need struggle, through which to define their strength. A lack of sufficient resources can provide that sense of struggle and resistance that we have the opportunity to measure our self by. They need to win the struggle and be a hero, by feeling personal strength and resilience. They need to listen to clues and a source of knowing inside. They need to feel happiness and the pleasure of doing their passion. They need to experience the miracles of serendipity that occur along the way. These are the elements on the table, the data indicators. \ When these elements are in place, then the process of becoming the best one can be in business is unfurling. What Jewke’s research, and the six case companies indicate, is a formula for business success. The least successful company, of the six, is Alexa, which is the company with the fewest of these elements in place. They declared bankruptcy and could not withstand Google’s competition (mgt245 module). Those companies with the most elements in place are on track for success. The relevance of this theoretical perspective to the role of individuals/small groups and the role of large teams/organizations in promoting the innovation effort is that the smaller the group, the more clearly one can go deeply inside oneself and summon passionate creativity. The larger the group, the more obstruction and distortion there is and the more power is lost. Although high-impact innovations can come out of various contexts (loners, partners, teams, small and large organizations, the optimal situation is to be alone or with a partner or intimate small group of people who help to energize, instead of interfering with or distorting or disempowering the sacred quality and power of the creative spark. Once the creative idea phase and its initial development are concretized, and one has a product and a vision, then the innovative individual needs community, specifically funding support and product development assistance. This community needs to be larger than the initial idea partnership or team because resources are required to translate creative vision and a draft product into a widely marketable, competitive success. Furthermore, an idea person is not always or necessarily good at follow-through, just as a large team or organization is often counterproductive to creative inspiration. Innovation is a fragile process, and it needs to be protected. Organizations are bulky and bureaucratic and they need to be inspired and jump-started. Truly successful business is a symbiotic relationship between the visionary and the technician, between the innovator and the developer. Works Cited "The Sources of Invention." Jewkes, John. Essays on Liberty, Vol. 5. Foundations for Economic Education, 1958. "mgt245 module." nd. 21 July 2011 . Read More