The hard part, you see, isn't the innovating. It really doesn't take the smartest guys to come up with something new- a new idea, a new concept, a new way of doing things. Quite a lot of not-too-smart people do this all the time too. They bring up things that we consider so ridiculous we begin to question how they thought them up and what goes on in their heads.
But what really is "ridiculous"?
Is it…
Gary Dahl who decided to sell rocks for pets? Rick Hunts who decided to merge a vacuum cleaner and hair clipper into a single product? Ken Ahroni who decided to make plastic turkey "wish bones" and put them on sale? Roni Do Lullo who made googles for dogs?
Or is it…
Blonsky George who decided that they best way to help women give birth is by inventing a machine subjecting pregnant women to centrifugal forces? David Peschel who thought it a great idea to implant magnets in our heads in place of ears for use with templeless glasses? Albert Cohen who decided to invent a mechanical hand to high five? Joe Armstrong who decided to create a user-operated apparatus for kicking the user in the butt just for fun?
How did one group make millions from their "ridiculous" inventions? How did the other group become nothing but laughing stocks with their "ridiculous" inventions?
Innovation is important. But not as important as something else.
What guides innovation process? Beyond the Bell Curve, what truly defines the Social Context of Innovation and its diffusion through the market?
Are you innovative? Is that even important?
* * *
© Breaking the Sacred Spark
[Count Down]
Comments
Post a Comment
Post your comment