Innovation

[Martin Farrent]

This is a buzz word that recently featured prominently in a thread about bows. I'd like to avoid using or insinuating any archery products as an example in this debate, because I think a counter-innovative tendency that is very far from restricted to archery becomes apparent in the use of the word itself.

Take the world of personal computers and their software.

Just ten years ago, the word "innovation" meant implementation of a solution or application previously restricted to sci-fi fantasies - if indeed conceived at all.

Today, "innovation" tends to mean taking an existing cutting-edge solution, copying or reconstructing it, and making it available to the mass of consumers. In the process, a frequently expensive commodity becomes cheaper, though often at a price in terms of quality.

The advantages are obvious: More people are able or willing to afford a solution similar to the actual innovation.

The main disadvantage, as I see it: Real innovators are under-rewarded and therefore not encouraged to continue in their innovative capacity. In the medium term, we possibly face a shortage of ideas to harvest.

One example of the PC and software industry combatting the negative part of the trend is an overt attempt to exploit the open-source scene... by getting people to innovate for free. This actually works, because many young talents run on pure enthusiasm or the promise of a long-term reward (reputation and subsequent career). Additionally, the open source community has a well-honed production and process infrastructure in place.

Such a unique work-around is not likely to function in other sectors of the economy, imo.

Best,

Martin

[Desert Archer]

The main disadvantage, as I see it: Real innovators are under-rewarded and therefore not encouraged to continue in their innovative capacity.

David Soza immediately comes to mind. Of the 4 products he conceived (The Master, Elite, Dalaa and his kit bow) only one remains. It saddens me to think about what "innovations" have been lost because of the way he was treated by the archery industry.

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

I share your sentiments, Dave.

I would like to keep that particular issue out of this debate however, lest it become partisan... much as I understand your inclination to do see it in that specific light.

Right now, what I find interesting is the devaluation of the word itself.

To an extent, the open-source movement in the software industry is co-responsible for the phenomenon - saying that "ideas are in the air" at any given time, therefore constituting nothing very special and belonging to no one.

There's some truth in that. Ideas actually are in the air for a long time before they become reality - moving from the realm of magic and sci-fi to the frantic efforts of crazy inventors to the scope of people actually able to implement them (like the dream of flying). And it's also true that any real step forward in technology or implementation is generally only possible when all the ingredients are in place - and is then a fairly minor step, viewed objectively.

But what's also true is that somebody actually takes that particular step and invests work and ideas to make it a reality - that particular step out of the many unfulfilled desires humans might have. That someone sits down and spends considerable time and resources working out all the tiresome details and ironing out all the glitches and hurdles.

Meaning to say: Inventing something is a process that ranges from the realisation that it can be done to actual completion of the work. That entire process is innovation, not just one part of it.

That entire process is proof of concept. After that, re-engineering that process is often a piece of cake. Not innovative at all.

Best,

Martin