10 Questions On Innovation
"I started this Section to link the ODBMS.ORG portal to the greater context of
innovation. I believe this is important. In our industry innovation plays a key
role. But how does innovation occur? Read in this Section what outstanding innovators
have to say about this topic by giving answers to 10 questions On Innovation. Learning
from great innovators is one source of inspiration, but not a guarantee...
Enjoy. -- Roberto V. Zicari (Editor)"
Read these interviews with great innovators:
10 Questions On Innovation to Alan Kay
April 2006 -
Alan Kay is one of the earliest pioneers of object-oriented programming, personal
computing, and graphical user interfaces. He invented or co-invented object-oriented
programming; Smalltalk; the 1968 FLEX Machine, a desktop computer with graphical
user interface and object-oriented operating system; the Dynabook, a laptop computer
for children; Alto, the first networked PC; and participated in the design of the
ARPAnet.
1. Who are your favorite innovators?
Hundreds if not thousands of important innovators have flourished over the 400 years
that we've had real science, and antiquity shows that even though it was much harder
to innovate in the deep past, there have been deep seminal thinkers operating in
most generations. My interest in reading all sorts of things makes it difficult
to set down a short list here. (Who doesn't love Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Aristarchus,
etc.?) In our own time and my own field, I was particularly struck by the ideas
of Licklider (man-computer symbiosis), Ivan Sutherland (invention of interactive
computer graphics and object oriented modeling), Dave Evans (the father of continuous
tone 3D graphics), Nygaard and Dahl (Simula), Bob Barton (the B5000 computer), John
McCarthy (Lisp), Seymour Papert (Logo and constructivist education), Marvin Minsky,
Doug Engelbart, Bob Taylor, etc. In my own generation I've been tremendously impressed
by the work of Butler Lampson, Chuck Thacker, Dan Ingalls, Adele Goldberg, Vint
Cerf, Bob Kahn, Nicholas Negroponte, Carl Hewitt, Paul MacCready, and many more
from the 60s and 70s communities funded by ARPA and Xerox PARC. In the generation(s)
after me, I have been very impressed with Dave Reed's distributed object system,
Bill Atkinson's Hypercard, Mitchel Resnick's starLOGO, Brewster Kahle's file systems,
Doug Lenat's CYC research, Takeo Igarashi's UI work, etc. The Draper Prize of the
NAE is aimed not just at engineering feats but at those that really got out there
and benefited humanity: integrated circuit, jet engine, GPS, Internet, Personal
Computing, etc. One of my favorites from the early 19th century is the guy who invented
the hydraulic ram pump, a truly elegant simple outstanding machine.
2. What do you consider are the most promising innovations of the last 3 years?
I can't think of any in computing (we are in a very incremental and almost moribund
period in our field) but this could simply be "old-fogeyism" on my part. If the
content of the $100 Laptop is done well and we can figure out how to help the helpers
of the children who will get them, then this should qualify as a grand innovation
(perhaps in 2008?). But if we widen the scope, there are some very promising ideas
that grapple with some of the largest human problems.
a. For example, about 70% of the world does not have drinking water of high enough
quality. The conversion of low quality water to high quality water requires both
new technologies (e.g. membranes for reverse osmosis) and energy (for forcing water
backwards through the osmotic membranes, or distillation, etc.). Some very good
things are now being done here, including a very inexpensive and efficient tidal-powered
high quality water producer, etc.
b. I forget when the modifications to bacteria to produce fuel from garbage were
done. The insulin modification was done longer ago, but I think I recall seeing
that some good fuel production recombinant modifications were done more recently.
I think we could claim that the progress in this general area are such to be a promising
innovation.
c. Another innovation that has gotten particularly important over the last 3 years
is the joining of a number of fields into a real brain science, that has led to
a much better understanding of brain chemistry, process, psychology, and pharmacology.
3. What helped you to become a successful innovator?
No one has benefited more from their community than I have (see:
"The Power of the Context" - PDF). Beyond that, my interest in helping children
learn how to think (catalyzed by Papert and my dismay with adult behavior) and wide
reading got me hooked into the deep implications of computing as the next 500 year
"big deal" since the printing press. This made it much easier to not get sucked
into the whirlpool of current technical problems and to focus on "what should the
technology be doing regardless of what it is doing now?". Also, "artists" are people
who have to do art regardless of all else, and fundamental research and engineering
is an art form whose best practitioners are kind of compulsive about making things
happen. Xerox PARC was a concentration of technological artists with enlightened
funding and organization provided by Bob Taylor. It was the perfect atmosphere for
people with artistic visions.
4. Did you pay a price to be an innovator? Which one?
Interesting question. Beyond some of the compulsive behaviors (which can get a little
too total), I would say "no" with regard to the 60s and most of the 70s. In the
last 25 years there have been far fewer funding sources that have the enlightened
model of ARPA and Xerox PARC. I don't have any interest in "computing as a job"
but only in trying to round off the first phase of the invention of personal computing,
especially forchildren. This hasn't really happened yet, and it is disturbing to
see the poor subset of personal computing that is vended and generally accepted
today. So the price today is much higher than when mainframe people were calling
us crazy for trying to do personal computing. That was nothing. What's harder today
is that people think they've got personal computing and they don't really. The analogy
here is between the jump from non-literacy to the printing press (which might be
fought but the chasm that is to be crossed is clear) vs. the much trickier one of
trying to explain to a culture that has the printing press and universities that
it is not very well educated and thinks pretty poorly (for example, the US is in
this general state -- it has the trappings but not the perspective to see how poorly
educated most "educated people" actually are).
5. What are the rewards to be an innovator?
I think this differs with the personalities of the innovators. I felt most rewarded
when an idea really worked out as imagined (this is a biggie if you have to leave
present realities to do the imagining), and also it is a big deal to me that I was
funded by ARPA and Xerox PARC (in fact I got better funding as a post-doc in constant
dollars and environments than I do today). That is quite a statement to make, but
it's quite true.
A terrific byproduct is that I've been able to meet with many of my heros, and work
with quite a few of them. That has been very exciting.
My main feeling about the much later awards and medals is that (in our case at least)
they miss the actual community-synergistic process. I think this is generally true
about work that has a lot of engineering and building of stuff as part of it. As
many important things come out of the building as in the original visions, yet the
awards tend to celebrate the visions more than the larger process.
So actually getting to do the work with others of like mind has been the big thrill
and reward.
6. What are in your opinion the top 3 criteria for successful innovation?
A lot depends on the time scale of requisite change. I've been more of an inventor
than an innovator, in that I think innovation also has something with getting stuff
into the larger world. Most of my ideas that have gone out into the world have been
taken there by others.
Example of short time scale: the Google folks did not invent the Internet or search
engines. They had a particular idea about what was important and concentrated on
that, hung in there, and have been successful. I think most innovation is like that:
limited invention and ability to couple to existing structures. The ideas that require
a general learning curve are more difficult to innovate.
For example, if you look at the grand dreams of the ARPA community, most required
large changes both with technology and society. At PARC we decided (rightly) that
we would have to build all of our HW and all of our SW to avoid artificial blocks
from current practice. The first order theory is: this is crazy! But the second
order theory says: if you can do it, then you must do it! A few years before, when
we were all in ARPA research (and one of the joint projects was to do the ARPAnet),
the IMP "routers" were made to order in one of the projects because no vendor equipment
would do.
One way to answer the question is to note that the personality types and motivations
of the inventors and innovators I've known have been rather different. A lot of
different types can be successful. However, the ability to compulsively focus on
a goal (short or long term) seems to be quite common across types. The more artistic
and grand the goals, the more deep self criticism (without degenerating into the
immobilization of depression) is required. This is not easy, because it has to be
combined with an almost boundless confidence (but one that is not stupid about current
goodness of idea). Since most ideas (even by talented people who have lots of ideas)are
mediocre down to bad, the combination of criticism and optimism is a tricky important
dance.
You've got to have lots of ideas, you've got to get rid of most of them, you've
got to think that the visions are doable.
7. What would you recommend to young people who wish to pursue innovation?
Again, the best strategies depend on personality and motivational types. My type
is "lone wolf" but I realized in grad school that what I wanted to do could not
be done by myself. This led to quite a bit of conflict before I was able to start
to adjust to the idea that I would have to set up a research group of folks whose
talents were complementary to mine and somehow try to guide it. I wasn't terribly
good at this, but we managed to get some things done. So the simple advice here
is to
(a) try to understand both one's strengths and weaknesses. The best plans require
strategies for both.
(b) It's pretty hard to get by without gaining a fair amount of knowledge. Some
innovators concentrate in their field (or a sub-field), and others draw on many
fields for inspirations and analogies. Many technologists today are quite ignorant
of history (even in their own field), and this leads to some really horrible blind
attempts to reinvent. Awareness of history and anthropology in the large can relate
technologists to the larger human condition and the actual end-users of their ideas.
The needs that can be gleaned from history, etc., can also be a great source for
ideas.
(c) Avoid taking your identity from your "product" or "process" or "possessions"
or "peers" -- instead try to identify with your "potential". I.e. don't become a
"brand". This has always been a bit of a problem in computing, but seems to be much
bigger today (and getting still bigger) for individuals, groups, companies, and
countries. Potential allows looking ahead and changing in a way that the other "p's"
don't.
(d) As Jim Watson likes to say: if you are the smartest person in the room then
you are in the wrong room. The genius of Bob Taylor at PARC was to get very good
people in a designed environment so that no one was the smartest person in the room.
This was very powerful.
(e) Learn how to hang in there.
8. In your opinion how can we create a culture that supports and sustains innovation?
Well, we had one until a few decades ago (and if you put more weight on incrementalism,
we still have one). Awareness, scope, and multiple perspectives are all things that
real education is supposed to magnify. The lack of real education (and really educated
people) especially in the US is a disaster on many fronts. Once a culture gets to
the point where it can't tell whether it is educated or not, it is in real trouble.
One of the main goals of education early on is to give a sense of what there is
to be known, and the thresholds required. One way to look at the US is that a little
over 1% of US adults are scientists, engineers, mathematicians and physicians. That
plus the industrial revolution to magnify the results of this small group gives
the US the illusion of being a modern civilization. But if you take the industrial
revolution away, it starts to look more like a 3rd world country.
A simpler way of looking at this is that any culture that requires war and threat
of war to spend on research is missing the self-awareness to climb into the next
stage of civilization.
9. What do you think stops/slows down innovation?
People who would rather be in control of mediocre to moribund processes rather than
feel out of control with possibly great processes. This has been the big change
in funding over the last 30 years.
10.Do you think becoming an innovator can be taught?
Well, with reference to my debts to my own community, I would say "yes, up to a
certain extent". To return to my soapbox on education, real education requires the
following to happen to a mind: to create "a new field/idea/technology/path (either
radically or incrementally) which had a profound (positive) impact on a particular
subject area/field" (which is pretty much your definition of innovation). In other
words, we have to do invention/innovation in our own heads to get educated and to
learn how to think, and this is not easy for anyone, and it is quite difficult for
many, but doable.
Another way to look at these questions from a wider point of view is that the ultimate
aim of education is really to learn how minds work, especially human minds, and
most especially our mind.
10 Questions On Innovation to Vinton G. Cerf
February 2006 - Vinton G. Cerf is vice president and chief Internet evangelist
for Google. Widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet," Cerf is the co-designer
of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. In December 1997,
President Clinton presented the U.S. National Medal of Technology to Cerf and his
partner, Robert E. Kahn, for founding and developing the Internet.
1. Who are your favorite innovators?
There are inventions whose inventors I don't know so the latter question has some
relevance. Dean Kamen is one of my favorite innovators because he's a fearless engineer.
Similarly Burt Rutan and Paul McReady are equally able to think of solutions out
of the ordinary. Tim Berners-Lee for the WWW. Fred Smith for inventing FEDEX. Steve
Jobs for his stunning ability to gauge the market for new devices/services. There
are many more.
2. What do you consider are the most promising innovations of the last 3 years?
Carbon Nanotubes that have such a variety of potential applications.
Broadband communication over power lines (experiencing a renewal of interest with
new economics;
Netflix - re-inventing DVD rental business.
3. What helped you to become a successful innovator?
Long term support for research by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency;
widespread participation in the design, implementation, deployment and operation
of the Internet by thousands of companies and individuals; a philosophy of openness;
and not constraining the Internet's evolution by patenting its technology.
4. Did you pay a price to be an innovator? Which one?
My famiy paid a price - I wasn't around much and still travel a great deal.
5. What are the rewards to be an innovator?
When your ideas take root and benefit from the support of many people, when businesses
are built around them and when the world's population appears to get benefit from
them, how can you not feel very amply rewarded for your part it the creation?
6. What are in your opinion the top 3 criteria for successful innovation?
A) don't be afraid to re-visit old ideas - times, technology, tastes, economics
change and may make an unworkable idea into a winner.
B) Listen to experts but don't be constrained by them
C) Perseverence counts.
7. What would you recommend to young people who wish to pursue innovation?
Find something you are good at and stick with it. Successful innovators are not
afraid of hard work and long hours and perseverance in the face of adversity and
even ridicule.
8. In your opinion how can we create a culture that supports and sustains innovation?
Celebrate innovation; show our young children that innovators are not just those
that make a lot of money - they are also the ones who bring fresh, new ideas to
the table. Encourage exploration.
9. What do you think stops/slows down innovation?
Rigid training methods that stifle innovation; failure to recognize alternative
paths to creativity; positive feedback for out of the box thinking.
10.Do you think becoming an innovator can be taught?
I think conditions can be created to allow innovators to flourish but I am not sure
this is something that can be taught.
10 Questions On Innovation to Philippe Kahn
February 2006 -
Philippe Kahn is an extremely successful serial entrepreneur who founded four
leading companies: Fullpower Technologies, Inc., LightSurf, Starfish Technologies,
Inc. and Borland.
1. Who are your favorite innovators?
Usually all the great minds of the past, people such as Galileo, Marconi, Einstein
and Moses, Jesus Christ and Buddha
2. What do you consider are the most promising innovations of the last 3 years?
The convergence of Life Sciences and wireless technologies
3. What helped you to become a successful innovator?
When I came to Silicon Valley, I didn't have a work permit, so I had to create my
own opportunities. Innovation was the simplest way!
4. Did you pay a price to be an innovator? Which one?
Usually innovators are like pioneers in the old Far West: You can tell by the arrows
in their backs. However, the rewards are much greater than the inconveniences.
5. What are the rewards to be an innovator?
Immeasurable, Priceless: You get to do what no other has done, it's like being the
first person to climb Everest, every time.
6. What are in your opinion the top 3 criteria for successful innovation?
Vision, leadership, perseverance.
7. What would you recommend to young people who wish to pursue innovation?
Vision, leadership, perseverance.
8. In your opinion how can we create a culture that supports and sustains innovation?
Give a little bit of a spotlight to innovation, 1/100th of what pop-culture gets
will be a huge boost!
9. What do you think stops/slows down innovation?
Consumerism. Innovation is creative.
10.Do you think becoming an innovator can be taught?
To a certain extent, via role models.