Dark matter of innovation

The NY Times writes about a study by Eric von Hippel, from MIT Sloan School of Management, that reveals astonishing facts about innovation activities run by ‘ordinary people’ as opposed to all sort of professional innovation bodies. According to his findings, “the amount of money individual consumers spent making and improving products was more than twice as large as the amount spent by all British firms combined on product research and development over a three-year period (2.3 times more, to be precise – see the abstract of this paper Comparing Business and Household Sector Innovation in Consumer Products).

He and his team argue that the traditional model of innovation (and of business in general) – that is, companies innovate and produce, consumers pay and consume – is beeing seriously transformed now into something more democratic, open and collaborative. “This is a new pattern for how innovations come about”, says Prof. von Hippel, that requires to rethink not only specific patent laws or R&D programs, but innovation policy and practices in general.

This doesn’t sound like a particularly striking discovery for me (but I was studying the patters of co-creation and people-driven innovation for years), but may sound shocking for many business managers and designers, for that matter). I remember a presentation by Amar Bhidé, at the World Congress of Information Technology in Amsterdam last year, where he told about “venturesome consumption”, a much more complex network of relationships, beyond mere ‘we innovate – you consume’. But I also remember that the audience of IT generals was slightly puzzled with his speech.

It’s noticeable that the study was financed by the British government; there is also interest in smilier studies from the Finnish and Portuguese governmental organizations, but not the US ones, where the innovation by research labs and companies is a deeply entrenched practice (Bhidé, in fact, also mentioned that, as a factor inhibiting our recovery from recession and stagnation). Read more in the paper Innovation Far Removed From the Lab

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Design /|\, Ideas (Big & Small), Technology, & Stuff and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Dark matter of innovation

  1. Hanne says:

    Hi Slava,
    nice to read your blog, and great to get some numbers to the phenomena described by Eric van Hippel. I have always called this clandestine or garage innovation. The biggest paradox is even that many of the things that people do with stuff that it wasn’t meant to be used for is out there for grabs. It’s just that companies don’t go out and look for it. Or even if companies do know it might be that the uses/ideas found doesn’t get through the innovation funnel, it doesn’t pass the innovation process selection criteria.
    Have a look at my blog too, let me know what you think? best Hanne

    • centralasian says:

      Hi, Hanne, thanks for the kind words, I am glad that you like my scribbles here; I am planning to be hyper-active soon, so stay tuned 🙂

      Yes, it’s true that companies don’t ‘go out’, but even when they do, they still don’t see much, or rather see the world through a very particular glasses. It’s more about mindset changes, and those are always difficult to make.

      Your blog is cool, do write more often! I don’t know how to follow you through this blog engine, but I made a stream of your blog to Friendfeed, and will be reading you from there; you are my ‘imaginary friend’ now 🙂

      I noticed you are a birthday person tomorrow, right? My congratulations in advance!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s