COMRADITY

Innovation is Relative

[Also published in Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-warman-kern/innovation-is-relative_b_681293.html ]

In John Kao's Book, Innovation Nation, he says: "breakthrough technologies regularly set the stage for staggering waves of innovation."

In other words, he is establishing that new technology isn't innovation.  It is creates the potential for innovation. 

This is a critical distinction.   What are the factors that make the potential created by new technology realized?

Alan Patrick, an author of the "Big Potatoes: The London Manifesto for Innovation",  provides a summary of the research he did on the pace of innovation:

" . . . I looked at . . . the history of innovation over the last 100 years, from 1909 to 2009. If I had a hypothesis before starting it would be that there was an accelerating pace of innovation. The results - so far - tell me that is not the case, and it is probably cyclical. In fact, one could argue that innovation in 1909, 1949 and 1969 was greater than 2009."

Alan told me that my Grandfather (1989-1990) probably experienced more "Future Shock" than I have. 

But while discussing this with my Grandfather's daughter (my "early-adopter" Mother who rightly says she has been much more likely to try new technology than her father ever did), I understood what John Kao meant when he said that "Probably, the most widely shared misconception about innovation is that it's all about science and high tech."

My Grandfather really didn't have a reason to be motivated to use many of the technologies which emerged in his lifetime.  As a Dentist, neither the telephone nor air flight were critical to expanding his revenue potential.  He had plenty of business in his hometown to fill his calendar.  No need for conference calls by telephone.  All phone appointments were made through his assistant.  In fact, he was never comfortable talking to me on the phone even when I was hundreds of miles away.  He preferred letters. 

So he didn't experience so much "Future Shock".  In fact, when interviewed by the local NBC affiliate on his 100th birthday and asked what the most important advancement in his time was, his answer - "The Forward Pass." 

Why would he think allowing the forward pass in American football was the most important advancement in his time when automobiles, air flight, telephones, radio, television, film, etc. were introduced?  Because football was his passion.  The memories he cherished the most from his life were when he played football for his college team (picture scenes from the movie, Leatherheads) and coaching football as a High School teacher before he went on to study to become a Dentist. 

This implies that a factor that transforms a new technology into an innovation is the reason to use it.  In other words, innovation is relative to the reason as much as the technology. 

This makes sense when you consider that people need a reason to be highly motivated to leave behind what is comfortable to discover new possibilities.  What are the reasons that disrupt the ambiguity of the pros and cons of risking something new?

In a previous post, I gave the example of  turning a loss into a positive.  In a subsequent post, I discuss the evidence that innovators and creators are playing it safe because the perceived risks are too high to explore possibilities with unknown outcomes.  Next I will explore examples of reasons that have motivated people to "disrupt the ambiguity" created by new possibilities.

When the Innovative & Creative "Play it Safe"

[Also published in Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-warman-kern/when-the-innovative-creat_b_675790.html]

Continuing the challenge of reflecting the state of innovation, in my previous post "Turning Loss into a Positive", I referenced an article in the New York Times which makes the point that truly innovative medical research projects do not get funding.   Ironically the title says it all: "Grant System Leads Cancer Researchers to Play It Safe".

"'The problem in science is that the way you get ahead is by staying within narrow parameters and doing what other people are doing,' Dr. Brawley said. 'No one wants to fund wild new ideas.'" (Brawley is identified in the article as the Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society)

But science isn't the only risk-averse arena. So is the creative industry, all the way down to the lonely, independent screenplay writer.  In a speech at Chautauqua Institution, August 7, 2009, Frank Pierson, (identified as the artistic director and distinguished filmmaker-in-residence at the American Film Institute the local newspaper covering the speech ) shared his concern that the quality of today's film industry suffers from independent, freelance writers practicing self-censorship - "Why would a writer spend a year to write a screenplay that no banker would finance?"

Meanwhile, after several years of lackluster returns, the Venture Industry is also playing it safe.   According to Mark Suster, "The VC industry has performed terribly over the past 10 years.  Many firms didn’t even return LPs (Limited Partners) their original money let alone a profit."  Mark explains, the industry is reducing risk by playing the numbers game - investing seed money in more lean start-ups and play the odds that something will take off.  The example many are looking to is Y Combinator on the West Coast - a seed fund for young people with ideas for start-ups. 

But here's a surer bet than the "spray it against the wall and hope" strategy: Go Back to the Future.

1) If necessity is the mother of invention, then experience is a goldmine.  When innovating, some of the best ideas come from the people who have spent a career immersed in the problem - consistent with Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which posits that it takes 10,000 hours to be really good at something.

For example, Dr. Eileen K. Jaffe is featured in the NYT article.  After 25 years of scientific research, she "stumbled upon results that went against textbook explanations, suggesting that it might be possible to find an entirely new class of drugs that could disable proteins that fuel cancer cells."  But in a system that plays it safe, she could not find funding to pursue her theory:

"But her grant proposal was rejected out of hand by the institutes of health, not even discussed by a review panel. . . Dr. Jaffe is just conceiving her project; it is much to soon to know whether it will result in a revolutionary drug. . . 'They said I don’t have preliminary results,' she said. 'Of course I don’t. I need the grant money to get them.'"

The benefits of investing in Jaffe's unproven hypothesis probably go beyond what Gladwell documents in his examples. The benefits probably go beyond what Gladwell documents in his examples.  After all, when immersed in a business over a long period, not only is the current problem "digested" in the whatever side or layer of the brain is responsible for creativity, but also the potential "unintended" consequences of potential solutions are intuited.   As a result, experience can contribute good solutions and those which are fundamentally more executable.

2) It takes a "culture of we" to bring an idea to life.  Frank Pierson, credited with the screenplay for "Cool Hand Luke", as a contract writer for a Studio, claims that movies like this were:  "'the product of creative cross-fertilization, in a social setting that valued and encouraged good  storytelling before raw profit.'"

In his speech, Frank described the atmosphere of contract writers who were, literally and figuratively,  thrown together to produce a creative product.  The camaraderie that comes from collaborating may be a lost secret to productive creativity.  Furthermore, these writers weren't self-censoring out of concern for "profit".  They were paid salary as contract workers, whether they produced or not. 

The effectiveness of this model is consistent with Daniel Pink's surprising summary of research on motivating "cerebral" productivity . . .
Net, by "playing it safe" we risk disrupting creativity instead of disrupting the establishment.  To break the cycle of lack of innovation success, an untapped opportunity is to go back to the future with three strategies: engage those who have been immersed in the problem and have a passion to "fix it", create an environment where the camaraderie of collaboration can work its magic, and improve productivity with a base compensation plan instead of the pure back-end reward.

Turning a Loss into a Positive

[Also published in Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-warman-kern/turning-a-loss-into-a-pos_b_666495.html]

It takes a purpose with high expectations  to motivate the  "culture of we"  necessary for real innovation. 

And this is the first "riff" I'll improvise on from John Kao's book, Innovation Nation, How America is Losing Its Innovation Edge, Why it Matters, and What We Can Do to Get it Back. 

“My own definition of innovation is both integrative and aspirational.”

A purpose which aims to vindicate a loss and maintain the status quo will not motivate people to take action.   Probably because, intuitively, most people know that when there's a loss it is futile to try to restore the status quo. 

To motivate people to adopt a purpose that is bigger than "me", it takes a more positive vision.

Some think (as evidenced by many politicians' strategies) that threats which inspire fear will galvanize our polarized society to work together.  I suspect they have misinterpreted the factors effecting innovation in response to WWII and Sputnik. 

When you consider the outcome of ramping up for WWII and going to the Moon, it reveals a much higher purpose - to excel, not to react out of fear.   The patents developed and exploited, the factories built to manufacture equipment and goods didn't exist before the war and are still businesses today - some Fortune 50 companies.  I suspect no one has documented these stories.  

It has been so long that our expectations have been so high that I think we forget what it feels like.  So here's an example from a recent personal experience. . . 

Friends of ours lost their son at the age of 30, in the prime of his life to Lymphoma.  Turns out, Lymphoma is the number 1 killer of men 18-34 because when it attacks during this phase of life it is just so virulent. 

These friends have turned the loss of their son into a positive by starting a foundation that has raised about $7 Million to fund research that can quickly make a difference.  The idea was inspired by a conversation in the hospital cafeteria between the Mother and a medical researcher who told her that significantly more time is spent raising money by writing grants for research than actually doing research.  So when her son died, they decided to make a difference by leveraging their resources and connections to raise money to accelerate the research process and to focus on research that is difficult to raise money for.   (The NYT published an article in 2009 revealing how difficult it is to raise funding for truly innovative medical research - even by seasoned researchers - which I can't find but will keep looking!)  Both of these purposes are gamechanging!

At the annual fundraiser for the foundation, the lead Doctor told us they have made so much progress in the last 6 years that if the son were to arrive at the hospital today for treatment, they would treat him completely differently. 

And you can only imagine the ripple effect  now and in the future. There are so many people who have participated: people who donate money, the clinicians, patients who participate in studies,  caregivers, and those who benefit from the well-being of patients and their caregivers - children, employees, students, etc.  They have all benefitted in some way or another. 

The implication is that a purpose that turns a loss into a positive sets expectations high enough to focus on something bigger than "me".  That's how a "culture of we" starts.  And real innovation is distinguished by the depth and breadth of the ripple effect beyond the original purpose.  This is what a "culture of we" feels like. 

"Turning a loss into a positive" is the first example of  "Disrupting Ambiguity", a theme I will continue to explore.

The Challenge

[Also published in Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-warman-kern/the-challenge_b_666489.html]

I was invited to by Arianna to blog on Huffington Post because of this email I sent regarding her review of John Kao's book, Innovation Nation, How America is Losing Its Innovation Edge, Why it Matters, and What We Can Do to Get it Back.

The title of her review is a challenge: "Complacent America Needs to be an Innovation Nation".

She explains that John Kao points out that we haven't really had a major innovation period since the ramping up for WWII and going to the Moon.

I agree with her that a hurdle is the "culture of me" . . .

“innovation that is not informed solely by a desire to invent something that will make you rich, but to invent something that will enhance the overall good of society.”

. . . and I applaud her for reflecting a "culture of we" by finding something to agree with conservative David Brooks about:

“Brooks details how revolutions on both the left and the right have led to ‘an atomized, segmented society’ — one that needs to be replaced by a society ‘oriented around relationships and associations.’"

But I also challenged her as a representative of the media . . .

"But I am compelled to write to you, Arianna, and others in the media, because we need more than a one-off “sermon”. The media has contributed to the culture of me for a very long time by promoting the benefits of celebrity, nurturing the myth that happiness is found when it is 'all about me'. Instead of trying to manipulate or control culture, the recommendation is to reflect culture."

And she is challenging me right back, by inviting me to blog on Huffington Post.

Here it goes . . .

Why isn't Neiman Lab publishing this comment?

Megan Garber writes a review of Clay Shirky's "Cognitive Surplus" on NeimanLab's website which prompts an exchange between fans and one, clearly recalcitrant, @balderdash. Here's the comment that hasn't been published for several days now:

@Patrick Phalen, Ok so Balderdash is pretty clear about his purpose in commenting, given his alias:) Although I have no use for his personal bashing of Shirky, I do think he is raising a fair point. 

I get that there is more entertainment value to creating your own webpage for your family and friends than watching most of today's television programming. 

But, wasn't making publishing and production tools accessible about the promise for the 98% of the very talented who don't fit the mold of mainstream publishers and production companies to bring their ideas to life?

Wasn't empowering everyone with freedom of speech the promise of the "masses" helping the creative product of these unknown highly talented people rise to the top?

In my opinion, Facebook is fine for folks who want to make their family photo album public (although I suspect there is some novelty to this that will be overwhelmed by the fear of those pictures of your kids getting into the wrong hands).  But there needs to be places where people with talent can perfect their craft, discover new tools, learn to use new publishing and production technologies, protect their creations and cultivate a fanbase who will syndicate their work, and enjoy the camaraderie of this process. 

Separately, time is not a commodity. Time is scarce. There are only so many hours in the day and how we choose to use it determines the success or failure of any media business.  Timing affects scarcity.  The more immediate, the more valuable.  Technology keeps redefining what "now" means.  And it is getting narrower and narrower. 

I haven't read Shirky's book yet, but this one issue has me intrigued to buy and read it, based on your review.

Open Letter to Arianna Huffington on the Media's role in an "Innovation Nation"

This is an open “letter” to Arianna Huffington in response to her oped in the Chicago Tribune, “Complacent America needs to become an innovation nation”.  (UPDATE: can't seem to find that link so here's a link to a similar piece published in Huffington Post.)

Dear Arianna,

Your oped piece is a welcomed reinforcement to our belief that the point is we want to transform this "culture of me" to a “culture of we”.

The author of the book which inspired your piece, John Kao, is someone I’ve read before (“Jamming”) and, I agree, nails the truth – we haven’t been really very innovative for a long time.

And here’s to your outreach to “the other side” -  referencing  conservative David Brooks’ endorsement of conservative British writer Philip Blond’s "communitarian" approach: “Brooks details how revolutions on both the left and the right have led to ‘an atomized, segmented society’ — one that needs to be replaced by a society ‘oriented around relationships and associations.’"

Your outreach is a progress towards finding the “sweet spot” between “me”and “they” – the culture of “we”.

I particularly applaud how you find a common purpose to Kao, Brooks, and Blond – “innovation that is not informed solely by a desire to invent something that will make you rich, but to invent something that will enhance the overall good of society.”

But I am compelled to write to you, Arianna, and others in the media, because we need more than a one-off “sermon”.    The media has contributed to the culture of me for a very long time by promoting the benefits of celebrity, nurturing the myth that happiness is found when it is “all about me”.    Instead of trying to manipulate or control culture, the recommendation is to reflect culture.

History suggests that when a creation reflects - not manipulates - culture it is more likely to endure.   To give a few examples, I focus on the same historic moments, Kao points to – Pearl Harbor and Sputnik.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity culture has led to a divided, have/have not society and a de-moralized nation.    The Depression revealed the inequities and unfairness of a society where the masses make a few people rich and famous, but are left behind when times are tough.    Perhaps it was this tension which inspired the story of Citizen Kane about the dark side of a media mogul, released in 1941 the same year as the Pearl Harbor attack.    Perhaps it was in the context of this social tension that the Pearl Harbor attack, Kao credits with initiating an era innovation, was so powerful.    We needed a purpose to bring a divided nation together.    The movie titles throughout the rest of the 1940’s sound like the billboard for a pro-war propaganda festival.    But the film which remains a classic is Citizen Kane.

Doesn’t that suggest that media’s best product reflects culture rather than trying to manipulate it?

Kao also refers to Sputnik as the beginning of the next era of American Innovation.    But importantly it is the cultural context in which Kennedy leveraged Sputnik to motivate investing in the Space Race.  When Sputnik was announced in 1954, US society was sharply divided by the McCarthy era when the Cold War was about turning on ourselves.   One particular dividing line was creativity.    Among the most often targeted for blacklisting was the creative community.    Another example of how enduring media is when it reflects tensions in our culture, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible about the Salem witch trials was performed for the first time at the height of the McCarthy era in 1953.   

My final example of how powerful and enduring media can be when it reflects culture is "Kind of Blue".    A year before Kennedy announced the space program, an icon to creativity was produced: “Kind of Blue” by Miles Davis, with pianists Bill Evans and Wynton Kelly, drummer Jimmy Cobb, bassist Paul Chambers, and saxophonists John Coltrane and Julian “Cannonball” Adderly.    The spontaneous improvisation recorded on the album is described by Cobb as “It must have been made in heaven.”

To sum up, it would be great if media would begin to nurture a "culture of we" by reflecting the culture rather than manipulating it.    Cultural tension gives us a purpose – a conflict to resolve, a problem to fix.    The benefit to you media, is your work is more likely to endure and not be forgotten.

Respectfully yours,

Katherine Warman Kern

@comradity

Happy Independence Day

Here's to all we depend on for our independence, that is, our freedom to make choices. 

Our freedom to choose a career is dependent on others making sacrifices, as personal as the parents who forgo indulgences to save money to send their kids to college, to the teachers and professors who accept a career with less money to dedicate their lives to teaching us about our choices.

Our freedom to choose a lifestyle is dependent on others providing services so we have the peace of mind to be carefree.

Our freedom to choose what information to believe is dependent upon the access others have paid for, for example, libraries and the internet's archives and search engines.

Our freedom to choose to speak is dependent on having a forum where others listen and take responsibility for the consequences their response could have on each individual and the community at large.

On this Independence Day and each day, let's not take for granted all whom our independence depends upon. 

Innovation in the "Culture of Me"

The "Culture of Me" may be the most significant hurdle to innovation today.

I don't think I need to support the point that today we have a "Culture of Me", do I?

Innovation is often born from the necessity of solving a problem.  So here are the symptoms and pitfalls of the "culture of Me" in problem solving, which I'm noticing. . .

1. When things go wrong, the "me" culture symptom is to first, above all, protect one's self.  Examples:

• McChrystal blames the lack of cooperation from Jones, Holbrook, et al for the failure of the counter-insurgency policy execution in Afghanistan.
• Initially, BP tiptoed around accepting responsibility for the Gulf oil disaster to cover their ass for later litigation and the US government was reluctant to interfere to avoid weakening a claim against BP in future litigation.

The alternative? First, take responsibility for solving the problem.

• Even if McChrystal is right about the need for unity among National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Ambassadors Holbrooke and Eikenberry, and VP Biden, he is just as responsible for forming a working relationship with them as they are with him.
• Even if the lawyers are right about litigation risks, it is the lawyers jobs to analyze the litigation risks, it is the responsibility of the leaders of BP and the US government to consider that risk and make decisions that weigh all the risks.

    2.     When things go wrong, the "me" culture symptom is to take your ball and go home.

• McChrystal behaves in a way that he knows will result in his dismissal or need to resign.
• BP management sends a young company spokes person to speak to the press the first week of the oil spill and US government issues a blanket moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf.

The alternative is to go in a room and not come out until disagreements are resolved, with all parties dedicated to the mission of resolving the conflict not perpetuating it.

• McChrystal should have confronted all these guys in a room, face-to-face, instead of hiding behind impersonal communication technologies where it is easy to masquerade and pretend nothing is wrong.
• BP leadership and the Whitehouse should have been shut in a room Week One and then issued Plan A and Plan B.

I realize the pitfalls of these two symptoms because I've been there and done that.  Walked away from "traditional" media/marketing in the early 1990's because I could see that advertising no longer offered the return on investment it did when mass media was less cluttered and retail distribution was not controlled by a few behemoths.  

Since then I've watched Venture investors fail to build new businesses on new media, because they were based on the myth that advertising still works.  And I'm listening to the twitterati battle on who will win:  free, ad supported media on the internet  (Mike Masnick in Techdirt "Another Journalist . . . PRedicts the end of the Web") or traditional media experimenting with paid models (Michael Hirschorn in The Atlantic "Closing the Digital Frontier").  I've witnessed the battle inside of companies who separate traditional media from internet because they can't figure out how to sell advertisers on paying more for the internet. 

The truth is advertising only delivers ROI in a few premium programs for those who can afford it (see previous post: Advertising is like wrinkle miracle ointments).   Marketing in a highly competitive market with ridiculous communication clutter has to be more nuanced, strategic, and dynamic to be efficient and effective.   There are no shortcuts.  There is no one formula.  Media could add value to both audience and marketers by inventing transparent ways to help people spend less time looking for each other and more time listening to each other.  It would be fun to work with a team who are motivated by this purpose. 

What's The Point?

You can accomplish a lot by yourself on the internet.  The playing field has been leveled.  You have the same resources to "brand" yourself on the internet as any celebrity or popular product.  Everyone has a chance at celebrity.  Everyone can have a "point".

Reminds me of an album from back in the day:

According to Wikipedia, "The Point! is a fable and the sixth album by American songwriter and musicianHarry Nilsson about a boy named Oblio, the only round-headed person in the Pointed Village, where by law everyone and everything had to have a point." (emphasis mine)

And this is what everyone - and I mean every individual, company, government, sports team, etc. - wants, isn't it?   We want to have a reason for being here, a legacy to be remembered,  a contribution to make.

The internet provides the communication tools to give everyone a chance to communicate their "point".  But the more websites, blogs, tweeters, profile pages, etc., the less likely anyone contributes anything other than clutter.  Or worse, good ideas go bad.  Disrupting this ambiguity will drive the next innovation.

The reality is that people who achieve celebrity went through a process to achieve a purpose.  It takes a process to realize the purpose and articulate it.  A process that involves other people providing feedback, challenging assumptions . . . the equivalent of the "sidemen" in a band to make the purpose resonate.  The purpose is the "Point" not the person.

We've been looking at social networks and systems which map, mine, and visualize what matters to people.   But we've yet to find a solution.  At worst, these solutions show all the messaging surrounding an individual.  At best, we see a snapshot of one "meme" and all the people referencing it at one moment in time.  But one person's network, one "meme", in one moment in time doesn't tell us what matters and where to connect with people who care, so we can help people who share a purpose find each other and make a noticeable difference. 

If it is so hard for us (and we are immersed in looking for patterns in public info shared on the net)  it is even harder for anyone who goes to school, has a job, is raising a family. 

We've reached this point in time because of a reaction against the power of "they" to dictate choices.  "Disruptive Innovation" is explicitly targeted at destroying the power of "they" by empowering the "me".  

We believe the next phase is a renaissance of the culture of "we", where individuals who share a purpose can find each other and collaborate.  During the process of doing, individuals will discover that  their "point" is much bigger than me. 

Importantly, we believe the Comradity manifesto needs to be focused on the "culture of we" -  the sweet spot right down the middle between "me" and "they".

Our first application is to foster culture and commerce in the music makers community with MusikMosh.com.   Even celebrity musicians will tell you that they didn't learn and develop by themselves.   In the recent Rolling Stones Magazine, celebrity frontman,Tom Petty, talks about his new album, MOJO: "We've joined the cause.  We respect the band as  more important than our individual problems, and we're getting along ridiculously well.  It's disgusting to see old men so happy." 

Why isn't interactive technology stimulating the economy?

This week Ben Bernanke warned that without new business creation, the US debt levels are unsustainable. 

Supposedly we have a vibrant new business creation driver, interactive media (internet & mobile). 

What I've read this week sounds like it is written in the context of a vibrant economic boom driven by innovation via interactive media. My comments all relate to what I think it will take for interactive technology to stimulate the eoncomy.

Here are the articles I've read and commented on:

Paid Content: by Ben Huh  A Guide To The Cultural Battle That Is Reshaping The Media Business : Makes the point that Internet Culture is in a battle for dominance vs. Popular Culture and suggests that Internet Culture will win.  

A VC: Ad Spend Trends:  Fred Wilson points out the good news that Internet share of ad$ is up from 0 to 5% in just over 10 years.

Find an airplance to jump out of: Dave Winer tells the NYT  that there's still time to take a risk.

Software Product Granularity: building depth-first vs. breadth-first Bradford Cross tells us about the advantages of scaling up software development based on user scenario (breadth first) instead of technology function (depth first).  

Why Mark Zuckerberg should have a Carol Bartz Moment Robert Scoble suggests that even if he thinks Mark Zuckerberg has made mistakes, he deserves credit for growing a business, maybe even more than Carol Bartz has done for Yahoo!.   

Here are the comments I've made on these articles.  In sum, in my opinion, here's what it will take for interactive technology to stimulate the economy:

1. Don't rely on a the crumbs of a shrinking pie of advertising spending, instead, create value people will pay for.
2. Guarantee to NOT use personal data in ways that violate the sensibilities of the consumers to differentiate paid alternatives from free, ad-based options.
3. Interactive and traditional media should use the traditional licensing relationship to collaborate to experiment with and find new value worth paying for by the consumer.
4. When developing technology, consider both marketing scalability and user experience in addition to engineering efficiencies.
5. Instead of emulating/competing with Google and Facebook, emulate or compete with Steve Jobs and Apple. After all that's what Google and Google's former advertising strategist, Tim Armstrong at AOL, are doing.