Point of View:William Buxton
Innovation vs. Invention
There is no question in my mind that with
appropriate management, we can improve
the levels of innovation and creativity
within organizations. There is no magic
here. Innovative people are no more ‘born’
than Olympic gold medallists or virtuoso
musicians. Yes, some of us are gifted
with more initial aptitude, but as music
and sports show, the ‘natural’ or the ‘child
prodigy’ frequently does not graduate to
the top level. Hard, focused and appropriately-
directed work trumps natural talent
in virtually every case. The question is,
where to focus? Let us start by looking at
the anatomy of the beast.
One key lesson that I took away from
Lester Thurlow’s book, Head to Head, is
the observation that, “Innovation in process
trumps innovation in product.” Thurlow
was contrasting the research investment
strategies between the U.S. and Japan in
the post-war years. His observation was
that the U.S. took a materialistic approach
to their investment, focusing on products,
while the Japanese focused on process. His
observation was that while the U.S.
invented DRAM, the VCR or the LCD, it
also incurred the highest up-front costs,
while the Japanese reaped the primary
profit due to their superior processes of
manufacturing and distribution.
Today, we have a comparable example
in Apple and Dell. Apple is now below
Acer in PC market share, but they have
beautiful, design-intense systems. Dell’s
computers, on the other hand, are boring
and have virtually no technical or design
innovation. But Dell’s process has given
them a dominant market share. Some business
publications (e.g., Fast Company, Jan.
2004) have come to the dubious conclusion
that this says that innovation may not be all
that it was cracked up to be. Of course,
what they miss are two things: (a) the distinction
between innovation in product and
process, and (b) the following rule, which I
have decided to decree: innovation in
process + design trumps innovation in
process alone.
This, of course, should be obvious,
but it sure went over the head of the
Fast Company writers. If you want to
compete with Dell, ‘all’ you have to do is
match or exceed their innovation in manufacturing
and service, and do so with
innovative products.
To find an example that illustrates this,
we need look no farther than, yet again,
Apple. Forget their PC business for the
moment. In the music business, in which
both Dell and Apple are competing, Apple
is the hands-down winner. While Dell has
relied on their previously successful formula
of efficient process, but boring
design,Apple has triumphed on both fronts
in their iTunes and iPod product lines.
Apple not only dominates the music market,
their sales in that sector now exceed
those of their PCs – transforming the very
nature of the company, to the point where
the tag-line on their new iMac computer is,
“From the company that brought you the
iPod.” This, despite the iPod being launched
only in 2001 – 24 years after their first
computer, the Apple II, in 1977!
Let’s look at another aspect of all of
this, the difference between ‘innovation’
and ‘invention’. The closer one gets to
Route 128 in Boston and Silicon Valley, the
more it seems that people confuse the two.
Too often the obsession is with ‘inventing’
something totally unique, rather than
extracting value from the creative understanding
of what is already known.
In a recent study, the U.S. National
Research Council tracked a number of
telecommunications and computer technologies
from first conception to the point
where they reached a billion dollar industry.
The key thing to note is that the average
time from invention to market was 20-plus
years. So much for fast moving tech sector!
Which brings us to one of the most insightful
quotes that I have encountered, from
William Gibson: “The future is already
here. It is just not uniformly distributed.”
Here is the business lesson: innovation
is far more about prospecting, mining,
refining and adding value to ‘gold’ than it is
about alchemy. Rather than focusing on
the invention of the ‘brand new’, one
might better strive for creative insights on
how to combine, develop and leverage
Innovation is far more about prospecting, mining, refining
and adding value than it is about pure invention.
Too often, the obsession is with ‘inventing’
something totally unique, rather
than extracting value from the creative
understanding of what is already known.
Rotman Magazine Fall 2005 • 53
what is already out there, but hidden, or
not understood.
So now we come to the big debate:
who is a designer, and who should be a
designer? For a start, let’s look at the most
recent book, Emotional Design, by my friend
Don Norman. It has an epilogue entitled,
“We Are All Designers”. To this I say,
“Nonsense!”We are no more all designers
because we chose the colours of our walls,
and furniture arrangements, than we are all
mathematicians because we can count
change when we go to the corner store. If
we were all designers, then that would
imply that design already pervades our
entire business process, so there would be
no need to be having this conversation.
Design would not be an issue.
So if we are not all designers, and yet
design is important to business, then how
do we incorporate it into our process?
Rotman Dean Roger Martin’s view is
that design is relevant at all levels in business,
and I agree. However, while essential,
design itself is clearly not sufficient. Design
expertise must be complimented by
expertise in other distinct disciplines. The
complexity of today's business and the ecology
within which it functions demands high
standards of depth and competence among
a broad range of specialties, of which design
is (an all-too-neglected) one, but only one
of many. In light of this, I think that
Martin’s statement [from his article, “The
Design of Business”, Rotman Magazine,
Winter 2004], “Business people don’t need
to understand designers better: they need
to be designers,” requires qualifications.
The main risk is that it will prompt readers
to swing the pendulum too far in the direction
of some new bandwagon called
‘Design’ at the expense of doing what really
needs to be done.
Here is why. Design, like accounting,
law, etc. is a distinct and very specialized
discipline. Designers think differently, yes.
Their cognitive style is appropriate for the
type of work that they do. But remember,
other work requires other cognitive styles.
A design mentality in those cases may be
just as much a liability there, as their cognitive
style is a liability in a design studio. For
example, it would be a disaster to have a
designer running a software engineering
organization; likewise, it would be an equal
disaster to have an engineer running a
design organization. Herein lies the problem.
Nobody would dream of the former. It
is obviously absurd. On the other hand, the
latter is the norm (to the extent that there
is a design organization).
My problem with Roger’s statement is
that it is too close to that of Don Norman.
When everyone is a designer, the term risks
losing all meaning, and we risk – yet again
– discounting the specialized skills of the
designer, while at the same time diluting
the skills of the manager by making them a
second-rate designer.
Alan Kay was one of the lead people
at Xerox PARC back in the 70’s. I met him
around 1978, and he is responsible for my
long association with PARC. One of the
most important things that I have heard him
say is this: “It takes almost as much creativity
to understand a good idea as to have it in
the first place.”
The statement hit close to home and
helped me understand the problems with
the corporate culture within which I was
working at the time. From the perspective
of the innovator, here is what this said to
me: that it was not enough to simply have
great ideas. If you wanted the ideas to come
to fruition, you had to spend as much time
directing your innovation and creativity to
fostering a culture of creativity and a receptiveness
to innovation within the company,
as you spend on the ideas themselves. If you
do not, don’t be surprised or disappointed
if they come to naught.
From the perspective of the executives,
shareholders, or the board of a
company, there is a key lesson in all of this.
Fortunately, it is far easier to learn than
“how to become a designer,” and it is this:
success in capitalizing upon design and
innovation is primarily a cultural thing,
and shaping corporate culture is an executive
responsibility.
Why is Apple still in business? Because
on his second day – not month, not week –
Steve Jobs called in key analysts and told
them exactly how he was going to do it:
through design. He took the lead, from the
top, and then executed brilliantly.
Now compare your own organization
to Apple. Is design leadership an executive
level position? Do you have a Chief Design
Officer reporting to the president? My
view is that if you do not, you are not
serious about design or innovation.
Furthermore, you are telegraphing this fact
to all of your employees, along with a clear
message that they need not be either. As a
result, you might as well fire all of your creative
people, since you are setting them up
to fail anyhow.
As an executive, of course you have to
have creative and innovative ideas. But at
the top of the list should be ones that reflect
(a) how important innovation is to the
future of your company, (b) the role of
design in this, (c) a recognition that innovation
cannot be ghettoized in the research or
design departments, since it is an overall
cultural issue, and (d) an awareness of the
inevitable and dire consequences of ignoring
the previous three points..
William Buxton has been involved in the design of technologies
for creative endeavour for over 20 years. The
one-time chief scientist at Alias Research and SGI Inc. is
currently the principal of Buxton Design, a guest lecturer at
the Ontario College of Art, and a visiting professor at the
UofT’s Knowledge Media Design Institute.
You have to spend as much time directing
your innovation and creativity to
fostering a culture of creativity and a
receptiveness to innovation as you
spend on the ideas themselves.