Posts Tagged ‘innovation’

Planning for Failure

7 November, 2010 Leave a comment

Just about any piece on innovation I read suggests that it is critical that people be given space to fail in order that they can try new things. I have even seen it suggested that if you have a star performer who isn’t making any mistakes then you should tell them to make some (if someone knows who, tell me and I will update).

So how does it work then when operational and project plans include enough time to get the work done (if you are lucky), but rarely enough time to get something wrong and start again…

There are bunches of creativity killers out there. Some are stronger than others.  Limits on resources like money and people are often thought of as things that can drive creativity – but having an innovation allowance of time built into project plans could be a useful thing.

And if not, then we all might have an extra day to get all the work done 🙂


“Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.” – Oscar Wilde

Categories: General Tags: , , ,

What is our ‘adjacent possible’?

I was reading a Wired article with a discussion between Kevin Kelly and Steven Johnson about their new books and how they relate to where ideas come from.  The section below particularly caught my eye.

Kelly: I think there are a lot of ideas today that are ahead of their time. Human cloning, autopilot cars, patent-free law—all are close technically but too many steps ahead culturally. Innovating is about more than just having the idea yourself; you also have to bring everyone else to where your idea is. And that becomes really difficult if you’re too many steps ahead.
Johnson: The scientist Stuart Kauffman calls this the “adjacent possible.” At any given moment in evolution—of life, of natural systems, or of cultural systems—there’s a space of possibility that surrounds any current configuration of things. Change happens when you take that configuration and arrange it in a new way. But there are limits to how much you can change in a single move.
Which is why the great inventions are usually those that take the smallest possible step to unleash the most change. That was the difference between Tim Berners-Lee’s successful HTML code and Ted Nelson’s abortive Xanadu project. Both tried to jump into the same general space—a networked hypertext—but Tim’s approach did it with a dumb half-step, while Ted’s earlier, more elegant design required that everyone take five steps all at once.

As a believer of things future (and yes, that does drive other people around me nuts – since I am still waiting for a flying car, everyone to stop using email, and for printers to be removed from offices) the thing that most struck me about this passage was that the best ideas will not get up on a regular basis and instead it is the best ideas that the culture can handle that do.

Does it mean we should only put out ideas which we think people will be able to handle? Not on my watch.
Does this mean we should give up on the grand ideas out there?  I sincerely hope not.
Does it mean we should be less surprised when those grand ideas aren’t taken up? Hmmm…Probably.

Oh well…maybe we should just focus on finding a smaller group who are culturally ready for a bigger change…and re-set our expectations


PS. “With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed” – Abraham Lincoln

%d bloggers like this: