Creativity. Intellectual-property. MIT. User-innovation. Dot.life: Has Twitter's popularity peaked? A Human-Centred Innovation Approach – Why Market Researchers and. Back from the wonderful ESOMAR Qualitative 2009 conference in Marrakech I would like to share our presentation with everybody interested in “Human-Centred Innovation” and “interdisciplinary Innovation”. This presentation provides insight into the open innovation and co-creation idea and describes a human-centred innovation approach with respect to the changing roles of market research and product design outlining the potentials of merging different techniques and competencies of the two disciplines “Market Research” and “Product Design” in order to align products and services along consumers’ wants and needs.
The increased importance of strong interdisciplinary (internal) collaboration of researchers and designers for being successful in open innovation is emphasized. Only the combination of external co-creation and internal collaboration make open innovation programs successful. Gefällt mir: Gefällt mir Lade... The age of mass innovation | Economist.com. Improving science innovation. To experience most significant scientific advances, humans are dependent on the clunky unreengineered process of science innovation and deployment. Potential improvements to the innovation phase are discussed below. In the absence of clear feedback loops aligning research investigations with implemented results, scientists can languish in isolated labs for years and the majority do not seem to care whether their findings are useful to or implemented by others.
For type A scientists, the in-place incentive system is academic publishing and acknowledgment. Publishing is a codependent phenomenon with scientific publications increasingly exerting influence over the direction of research to generate more interesting reading. Suggested Improvements 1. Open human knowledge databasesWithout yet destabilizing the publishing juggernaut, some progress could be made in releasing already published and unpublishable findings into open databases of human knowledge. 2. 3. 4.
Bell Labs' history of inventions. By Linda A. Johnson, The Associated Press TRENTON, N.J. — It's the birthplace of the transistor, the laser, the solar cell and the fax machine. Its researchers were the first to hear the echoes of the Big Bang. And now this American legend is part of a French company. Bell Labs was founded in 1925 as the research arm of AT&T's national telephone business. Sixty years later, it was spun off as part of Lucent Technologies, which on Thursday was acquired by Paris-based Alcatel SA.
A NEW RING: Alcatel and Lucent merge, creating global telecom equipment giant Murray Hill-based Bell Labs employs about 9,000 researchers and engineers in seven countries, down from a peak of 24,000 in 1998 before Lucent drastically downsized. Its scientists have collectively have won six Nobel Prizes in Physics, nine U.S. The lab has been granted 32,031 U.S. patents, 15,000 of which are still active. A look at some key advances: •1925: First demonstration of a facsimile machine sending pictures over telephone wires. Industrial Labs that Still Do F. R & D Magazine. Top ten tips for preventing innovation. At a recent presentation in Austin by Seilevel about the goals and methods of requirements gathering, a member of the audience asked “What can we do with our requirements to assure innovation?”
That’s a tough question with an easy answer – nothing. What if the question had been “What can we do to prevent innovation?” That’s a better question with a lot of answers. Struggling with too much innovation? Yes, people have been innovating since fire and the wheel it’s a curse we’ve inherited. In modern times, much of that innovation has happened inside companies. 3M had the post-it note, Lockheed had the skunkworks that created the SR71. Google allows their employees to dedicate 20% of their time to whatever interests them – and Google’s employees innovate a lot. Most companies do a good job of providing incremental improvements to existing products and processes. Companies with track records of innovation have flawed processes. Here is some guidance about how to fix those problems: Table of Contents | July/August 2006. How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change. Technology Review: 10 Ways to Think about Innovation.
Each year, we choose the 35 innovators under the age of 35 whose new technologies seem most gloriously creative and most likely to expand human life. (Here are the 2006 winners.) In editing this year’s TR35–and rereading the profiles of last year’s winners, whom we introduced in the October 2005 issue–I’ve noticed a few things about successful innovation. (1) Successful innovators are famously untroubled by the prospect of failure. Bryan Cantrill, an engineer at Sun Microsystems who invented software that allows systems engineers to track bugs in real time (and whom we named one of 2005’s TR35), says, “People who have innovated once, and who say they are not frightened that they won’t be able to repeat their success, are probably lying.
The challenge is not to be crippled by fear, but allow it to drive you forward.” More profoundly, (2) many innovators appreciate failure. Boyden illustrates another theme: how (4) innovators find inspiration in disparate disciplines. Crowdsourcing: Consumers as Creators. Every business has customers who are sure they could design the products better themselves. So why not let them? Crowdsourcing is the unofficial (but catchy) name of an IT-enabled business trend in which companies get unpaid or low-paid amateurs to design products, create content, even tackle corporate R&D problems in their spare time. Crowdsourcing is a subset of what Eric von Hippel calls "user-centered innovation," in which manufacturers rely on customers not just to define their needs, but to define the products or enhancements to meet them. But unlike the bottom-up, ad-hoc communities that develop open-source software or better windsurfing gear, crowdsourced work is managed and owned by a single company that sells the results.
To paraphrase von Hippel, it relies on would-be customers' willingness to hand over their ideas to the company, either cheaply or for free, in order to see them go into production. HARNESS THE POWER. NOW LIE IN IT. DEGREES OF INFLUENCE. These are baby steps. John Seely Brown: Chief of Confusion. What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wr. Scott Walker points us to a fascinating paper by Carliss Y. Baldwin and Eric von Hippel, suggesting that some of the most basic theories on which the patent system is based are wrong, and because of that, the patent system might hinder innovation.
Obviously, we've pointed to numerous other research papers and case studies that suggest that the patent system quite frequently hinders innovation, but this one approaches it from a different angle than ones we've seen before, and is actually quite convincing. It looks at the putative theory that innovation comes from a direct profit motive of a single corporation looking to sell the good in market, and for that to work, the company needs to take the initial invention and get temporary monopoly protection to keep out competitors in order to recoup the cost of research and development. The problem is that while this is certainly true sometimes, in many, many, many other cases -- it's not the way it works at all.