Relevance paradox The relevance paradox describes an attempt to gather information relevant to a decision, which fails because the elimination of information perceived as distracting or unnecessary and thus detrimental to making an optimal decision, can also inadvertently exclude information that is actually crucial.[1] Definition[edit] In many cases in which action or decision is required, it is obvious what information relevant to the matter at hand may be lacking: a military attack may not have maps so reconnaissance is undertaken, an engineering project may not have ground condition details, and these will be ascertained, a public health program will require a survey of which illnesses are prevalent, and so on. However, in many significant instances across a wide range of areas, even when relevant information is readily available, the decision makers are not aware of its relevance because they lack the information which would make its relevance clear. Examples[edit] Avoidance[edit] See also[edit]
Technology life cycle The typical life-cycle of a manufacturing process or production system from the stages of its initial conception to its culmination as either a technique or procedure of common practice or to its demise. The Y-axis of the diagram shows the business gain to the proprietor of the technology while the X-axis traces its lifetime. The technology life-cycle (TLC) describes the commercial gain of a product through the expense of research and development phase, and the financial return during its "vital life". Some technologies, such as steel, paper or cement manufacturing, have a long lifespan (with minor variations in technology incorporated with time) whilst in other cases, such as electronic or pharmaceutical products, the lifespan may be quite short. The TLC associated with a product or technological service is different from product life-cycle (PLC) dealt with in product life-cycle management. The four phases of the technology life-cycle[edit] The TLC may be seen as composed of four phases:
Waves of Innovation SOURCE: The Economist, 20 Feb 1999.Kondratiev Waves, as Postulated by Joseph Schumpeter. Innovation is a serious matter. It is the key to American prosperity, security, better jobs, and better health, as well as responses to coming challenges like energy security and global warming. But it’s not as simple as the president’s State of the Union address, or his Strategy for American Innovation would suggest, according to a recent study of economic history. In As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution, a seminal work in cliometrics—the study of economic history—Chris Freeman and Francisco Louçã use historical data on technological advances, economic structure, salaries, and political unrest to derive a clear pattern linking innovation to the performance of the economy. Cliometrics was founded in 1960 as a response to the simplistic models of neoclassical economics. Let’s use the familiar example of steam power. The next Kondratiev wave?
The 16% Rule: The Secret to Accelerating Diffusion of Innovation (Presentation Slides) | INNOVATE OR DIE Over the last few months I have had the pleasure of presenting The 16% Rule, my theory on accelerating diffusion of innovation, at the 2011 ADMA Forum and at The Customer Show, Sydney. Thanks to everyone who came along to see me present, it is always an honour to speak in front of a full house. And an extra special thank you for the kind ratings. I’ve been informed that The 16% Rule was rated among the top 5 presentations at ADMA Forum, and was a “crowd favourite” at The Customer Show. I have now loaded up my presentation slides to SlideShare (below) for your reference. Please feel free to comment or contact me if you have any questions about The 16% Rule. The Secret to Accelerating Diffusion of Innovation: The 16% Rule Explained | INNOVATE OR DIE (innovateordie.com.au) Like this: Like Loading...
Research and development Cycle of research and development The research and development (R&D, also called research and technical development or research and technological development, RTD in Europe) is a specific group of activities within a business. The activities that are classified as R&D differ from company to company, but there are two primary models. Background[edit] New product design and development is more often than not a crucial factor in the survival of a company. A system driven by marketing is one that puts the customer needs first, and only produces goods that are known to sell. In general, R&D activities are conducted by specialized units or centers belonging to a company, or can be out-sourced to a contract research organization, universities, or state agencies. Statistics on organizations devoted to "R&D" may express the state of an industry, the degree of competition or the lure of progress. Business[edit] Present-day R&D is a core part of the modern business world. United States[edit]
Remember the Future - Innovation Games Goal: Understand Your Customers’ Definition of Success “What should our product do?” Ah, yes, the seemingly open-ended question that many times isn’t that open-ended at all. Most of the time, what your product should do is some reasonable extrapolation of what it has done in the past. Your cell phone should have better signal strength, longer batter life, and be lighter. So should your laptop. Hand each of your customers a few pieces of paper. Note: The phrasing of the question is extremely important. This game is based on numerous studies in cognitive psychology that have examined how we think about the future. This approach has other important benefits. Quova: Innovation Games for Sales Training Influence the Psychology of Persuasion Book Summary
Funding of science Research funding is a term generally covering any funding for scientific research, in the areas of both "hard" science and technology and social science. The term often connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated and only the most promising receive funding. Such processes, which are run by government, corporations or foundations, allocate scarce funds. Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.[citation needed] Government-funded research[edit] Critics of basic research are concerned that research funding for the sake of knowledge itself does not contribute to a great return.
Instinctual Innovation versus Intellectual Innovation One of the best Twitter names that I’ve come across in the past few years is @ShowerThinker – almost as cool as mine – @innovate. It’s an account for an inventor that makes post-it notes for the shower called Aqua Notes. This Twitter name captures a well-understood fact – that a lot of great ideas (and ultimately innovations) come to us not from brainstorming, but from the connection to our subconscious that occurs in the shower (or pretty much anywhere else in the bathroom). If so many great ideas come to us when our active mind is elsewhere, then why is such little attention paid to this source of innovation. A lot has been written about creativity and the brain, left brain vs. right brain thinking, and how often the brain just needs to get out of its own way for creativity to occur as there is no single creative area of the brain. Intellectual Innovation begins with active efforts to capture and develop ideas using techniques such as brainstorming, greenhousing, etc. What do you think?