Posts Tagged ‘speedofinnovation’

It’s about our rate of innovation

By Troed Sångberg | Published: August 22nd, 2011

In just two days Media Evolution The Conference begins in Malmö, Sweden. This blog post is about one of the themes of the conference that strikes me close to heart as a futurist – Man & Machine.

I’m writing this on a train, on my way to meet both colleagues, acquaintances and people I’ve so far only heard of but never met. For myself and most people this is something we look forward to. We love to meet, talk, exchange thoughts and ideas.

The same drive, true since the human race was spread out in pockets on the Sahara savannah (which wasn’t a desert back then), is one of the reasons us humans love to go to conferences, to pick up the phone, to read blog entries like this one. We’re simply the chatty animal.

I’ve dabbled in mapping the rate of human innovation to two other variables, the latency between our minds and the bandwidth with which we are able to transmit information. 8000 years ago, on that savannah, there was a local group of people we knew in detail, and every so often we got together with other groups of the same size to exchange goods and stories.

The first major society came about in the Nile valley, since catastrophic climate change dried out the lush savannah and the closest major body of water was the mighty Nile river. This made it possible for even more humans to exchange even more information, thus ideas, and we got amongst other things the written language.

Written language means we could now store information over time. It became possible to tell people, not to Google it, but to go read the walls in the temples.

Cutting the rest of the list somewhat short:

[...] Library of Alexandria, the printing press, the telegraph, newspapers, photography, telephone, TV, modems, Internet, mobile phones, mobile Internet devices [...]

… brings us to today. Most people reading this blog probably carries a mobile, with which they feel constantly in the know. No information is more than a few clicks away, and that has changed a lot of the activities that only a few years ago were very different. When I grew up, out in the countryside, I sometimes called a friend in the slightly smaller town six miles away to say I was coming over before jumping on my bike. When I arrived there could’ve been a change of plans, his family were suddenly not at home and I couldn’t call them. They couldn’t call me. It was a black hole of unused time (although I got a lot of exercise).

That doesn’t happen today, and we’re on our way to change our reality in an equally disruptive way again. We still, even with our most modern mobile devices, experience information through a “keyhole”. If I want to read the text someone just sent me, I felt the buzz in my pocket, I need to first pull out my mobile – read it – and when I’m done I’m going to put down the mobile again.

There’s a waste of attention span here. When something happens that interests me (of which I’m in control, depending on where I am and what I’m doing) that should be visible to me without me having to perform an expensive task switch or navigate about my plethora of devices.

The interaction part of our digital experience is going to [have to] move up into our active attention sphere – in front of our eyes, with completely new ways of interface navigation possibilities.

Granted, I only started wearing glasses a few months ago, but even the slightly better vision they give me – or for many just the ability to dim strong sunlight – is enough for us to put them on our noses. If we in addition get the opportunity to experience a much fuller reality, where we can gain additional knowledge about the world around us as well as being able to interact with other minds with even lower latency and higher bandwidth, we will.

Augmented Reality visors will continue the path of merging man and machine, technological human-to-human communication devices, raising the possible speed of human innovation once again.

See you at the conference! In addition to everywhere else I’m naturally going to be at the “Our relationship with technology” discussion table :)

[top]

Porous Companies

By Troed Sångberg | Published: February 28th, 2011

I recently tweeted that I love working at a big consumer facing company. I’ve been lucky in that in many of the places I’ve worked I’ve been able to interact directly with the people using what I’ve produced, but at the same time I feel that I’ve been unlucky in that I haven’t always been able to receive when they’ve wanted to reciprocate.

In my presentation series over the last few years a key recurrent theme has been what’s sometimes called “the gift economy” (and I recommend Tor Nørretranders’ excellent book The Generous Man on the subject). What we usually refer to as business, “the gold economy”, is only part of all the ways humans interact, and keep track of the value of those interactions.

Another part of my message has been the evolution of interaction from static, to search, to social. It’s very obvious that social is part of the gift economy, and vice versa. The concept of social currency captures this pretty accurately.

It’s not enough interacting one-way with everyone around you, your company and the products you create. As Eric von Hippel has shown, innovation tends to happen outside of your chosen four walls. That’s true also for the reputation based economy, the social currency, where the value of something kept behind closed doors would be less than if it’s made public. The observation of interest here being that this is true not only for things, but for the persons involved in creating those things as well.

The value of your employees increase the more they’re able to interact with everyone else. When their ideas are made visible they’re vetted and the social currency of both the employees and the ideas themselves are made part of the global knowledge economy. The alternative is for your employees and ideas to wither behind an iron curtain, unable to openly compete on equal terms.

I suggest porous companies, those that let ideas and their proponents be part of something bigger, are not only able to make better use of global knowledge but also to offer a more attractive workplace. Open Innovation is thus not only a buzzword affecting the way you do product development, but also part of the cost & benefits package you offer your employees.

When you have your next incredible idea, you’re going to talk to people whom you know do great stuff. If the great stuff I’ve done is locked inside a filing cabinet with our legal department, that won’t be me.

Let’s do porous.

[top]

Speed of Innovation

By Troed Sångberg | Published: November 3rd, 2009

A basic problem when trying to project a possible future is defining some sort of metric relevant to the area you’re researching. In this post, I’m going to detail one such metric that I find interesting when looking at the future of [mobile] software platforms – Speed of Innovation.

No matter where you happen to work, it’s a sure bet to claim that the majority of innovation in operating system features (scheduler advances, memory allocation algorithms), applications (music players, games) and services (location based wikis, streaming media) comes from others. When not affiliated in a way that makes the choice of for you, you tend to choose a system where you have easy access to make modifications – often Linux and other unix derivates.

Open source is a bit like basic research in that there’s no immideate economical benefit for the person(s) sharing innovations with others, but everyone knows that building a better common base allows for greater later innovations (similar to applied research).

Thus, once innovation has happened – and it’s likely it will have happened on an open source system – it will spread to similar or compatible systems. If someone were to publish a better process scheduler, it would quickly spread to platforms where no or very small changes to the original invention are needed.

These platforms would score higher on the Speed of Innovation criteria.

Now, of course it’s possible to duplicate all the innovation (according to some measure of relevance) to a proprietary platform, but it’s quite expensive (and more so the larger the differences from the original). This can be quite hard to accept if you’re a company with an existing large investment into a proprietary system, but as Seth Godin says – we must ignore sunk costs.

Now, not everything has to do with low level operating system APIs. There’s been a shift towards open third party development lately, especially on the smartphones-that-aren’t-smartphones. This has happened partly due to a change in turnaround times from development to getting the application into the hands of actual users (via app stores) but also due to an increase in platform capabilities and better development environments. The future in this area is projected to be what’s called web application development, web apps, and thus in the Speed of Innovation metric we need to take that change into account as well.

Interestingly, it’s the same thing. There’s one web component available, open source, where much of the innovation in the field tends to happen – Webkit. As detailed above, that component is available on unix platforms and if you’re already working with such a platform all new developments benefit your system with no or minimal changes.

Combining an open platform where much code already exists with a modern web engine and display framework and you get a platform where third party innovation will happen at a rapid pace. So rapid, it suddenly becomes less interesting to look at actual support for feature X today, and instead plot a trajectory where feature X is likely to have been supplied by someone, within a certain time frame.

It’s thus less a game of writing long lists of requirements, and more a game of simply (hah) projecting general technological development. Us futurists love to do that. For everyone else:

If you’re a developer, you want to be where you can fulfill your vision.

If you’re a consumer, you want to be where you can do what you want to do.

If you’re a handset manufacturer, you need to be where that innovation happens.

Android™ by Sony Ericsson – the XPERIA™ X10


Android is a trademark of Google Inc. Use of this trademark is subject to Google Permissions.

[top]