Nurturing Innovation (II)

Comments

3 responses to “Nurturing Innovation (II)”

1. Jordan Vance

   August 25, 2004

   I’ve never been in a public policy debate outside of the classroom, so this is entirely uninformed:

   The one problem I have with using tinkering as a buzzword replacement for innovation is one of semantics. I imagine tinkering to be performed on something that already exists; if you don’t like the power on your vacuum cleaner, you tinker around with it to increase the power. If you don’t like the idea of VoIP on telephone and cable lines, you can take a big leap and send it over power lines. To me, tinkering doesn’t involve lots of design and development, just a lot of hard work and trying different things. And why would someone (other than those of us who love to tinker) want a “pro-tinkering policy?” It is very difficult for the government to say, we want you to tinker and maybe eventually you’ll come up with something that is a major innovation to such and such industry or something. Because the government is no different than a big company (ok, so it’s a lot different) in that it needs to see results. I’m sure in the early days of email, people saw a great use for it (maybe not commercially, but within certain business sectors). I just find it hard to believe that an innovation policy would differ all that much from a tinkering policy as long as there are bright people looking at the ideas. If your idea sucks, for the most part (cough cough spam cough), people won’t pick it up. But eventually, enough people pick it up that it reaches critical mass and presto! Major innovation.

   I think you can’t have tinkering without innovation, and you can have innovation without tinkering, but it’s more prone to failure. And I agree with you that companies misusing the word innovate is annoying, but it isn’t really misuse, it’s just a narrow, self-serving application of the term to promote their ends.

   Since I’ve left school (jobless) I feel a lot dumber. So this comment may lack the clarity of vision. I don’t have much experience, but that’s just what I see here. I think the issues go deeper than the commercial big business. Perhaps the problem is not so much that companies aren’t fostering innovation but that innovation from within the government has slowed down. DARPA is now focusing on driving cars across a desert with obstacles. Perhaps driverless cars are the next big thing (in 25 years). Perhaps binocular computer vision is the next big thing (in 10-15 years). But we can’t be looking at big companies and saying we need major innovation, now! Very few innovations occur rapidly. But, since the boom, we’ve become accostumed to being flooded with ideas and innovations. (And now this comment doesn’t seem to fit here, but oh well). I think the biggest, most important fact, is, like you said, that we protect innovation. But I am not too afraid. You may not have found anyone in Washington 30 years ago who said look out for this email thing it is going to change everyone’s life, but I bet there were some people there who said, boy we could use this to make communication within the office a hell of a lot easier.

   Reply
2. Free2Innovate.net

   August 27, 2004

   Is Is Still “Innovation” If It’s For Profit?

   Edward Felten prefers the word “tinkering” to “innovation.” He’s pro-tinkering….

   Reply
3. Jay Gischer

   August 30, 2004

   Well, I say never underestimate either the importance of vocabulary, nor the ability of entrenched interests to coopt your vocabulary. If “tinkering” becomes hip, Microsoft will start saying that that’s what they do.

   But your distinction is still a useful one.

   Reply