Is Innovation the Most Abused Word In Business? 287
dcblogs writes "Most of what is called innovation today is mere distraction, according to a paper by economist Robert Gordon, written for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Real innovations involve things like the combustion engine or air conditioning, not the smartphone. The paper includes thought experiments to help you gain more respect for genuine innovations such as indoor plumbing. The Financial Times has posted the complete 25-page paper.(pdf)"
It is abused but I think this sets too high a bar. (Score:5, Insightful)
An innovation can be as small as a neat new way of handling some user interaction which nobody has done before or a heuristic which solves a hard problem but at the same time people from buisness or management backgrounds or courses do set an insanely low bar for what they consider "innovation".
If you were to believe buisness grads then "innovation" includes their "ideas" along the lines of "a website like *only better*" or "that thing which everyone is already doing but which I think is my neat new idea"
Re:It is abused but I think this sets too high a b (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree - there's a difference between innovation and incremental improvements.
"Innovation" has been abused by patent trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether or not the word "innovation" has become the most abused word in the business context, that remains to be seen
On the other hand, "innovation" itself has been abused by the patent trolls
Innovators and inventors nowadays often find themselves in between a rock and a very hard place
On one hand, they can get sued by patent trolls if they put their innovation to good use
On the other hand, many of the innovators' livelihood depends on their ability to invent, to innovate, to create new things
Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:4, Insightful)
The "innovation" word has certainly been abused in business contexts. However, to assert that it is the most abused word is less clear. After all, competition for that accolade (in a manner of speaking) is fairly stiff. There are many words from the MBA lexicon with even greater claim, such as leverage, incentivize, and similar linguistic horrors.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the use of 'transition' as a verb.
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:5, Informative)
I find it funny, I got an MBA degree, there was a strong effort in making sure we don't use buzz words, but to actually understand what they mean, then not to use them.
There are a lot of Managers and Upper Managers without MBA's those are the ones who tend to be the biggest offenders. They will hear MBA's use the terms in correct context then reuse them out of context.
For Example Synergy Is an aspect when people working in a team or a group produce more then the sum of each person. The Non-MBA takes this as meaning working well in a team, or just having a lot of energy and excitement about the work they do. Synergy is often not achieved even with groups and teams that work well with a lot of energy. Because as you put more people on a team the natural aspect is for each member is to work a little less hard then if they would do it themselves. MBA's may talk about Synergy as a goal, the other guys who don't know what it means and are too timid to ask, will interpret it incorrectly and reuse it in the wrong way. So in the modern MBA class we are told to avoid using these new terms that we learn because the non-MBA abuse them and degrade their meeting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yep.. MBAs *never* misuse these terms.
lolz... :P
If you're one of the good ones, good for you.
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:5, Interesting)
For Example Synergy Is an aspect when people working in a team or a group produce more then the sum of each person.
Sorry to disappoint you, but a group cannot produce more than the sum of each person.
This is called Ringelmann effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringelmann_effect [wikipedia.org]
it has been measured in 1914, by measuring the amount of effort of groups of different sizes.
When you put 8 persons together, you get the amount of effort only 4 can produce.
People unconsciously reduce their effort when they work in a team.
What you can do is try to increase intrinsic motivation, so that not too much energy is lost in the group.
Also, choose the best members for your team.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to disappoint you, but a group cannot produce more than the sum of each person.
Not sure I agree with that. Having a team means you can take advantage of things like specialization of labor. So even if each individual team member is not working as hard, the overall output can still be increased.
There's a reason that assembly lines are much more efficient than having each individual build each unit from start to finish
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a reason that assembly lines are much more efficient than having each individual build each unit from start to finish
This is indiividual work !
You split the task into tiny parts, so that people will become specialized in solving their little task.
The more separate the tasks, the more efficient your process can be.
But you don't produce more than the sum of individuals.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also worth noting that both the Ringelmann and Köhler effects were described with regards to purely physical tasks, over 75 years ago. Their relevance in more complex and more intellectual tasks is highly disputed, in particular ones where solutions and methods to achieve solutions are non-obvious or novel. For instance, solving simple mazes exhibits social loafing (decreased performance relative to individuals), but as the maze's complexity increases, social loafing is eliminated, and group performance increases as they grow larger! This is of course a very "basic" cognitive task, but already illustrates that groups -do- out-perform individuals in correct conditions.
Yes, lots of MBAs or MBA-lights don't understand what they're talking about, but some people are actually interested in the concepts that are brought to light during such courses and go read about them, rather than just relying on the buzz-words and five minute discussion before the next subject arises.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lots of MBAs or MBA-lights don't understand what they're talking about, but some people are actually interested in the concepts that are brought to light during such courses and go read about them, rather than just relying on the buzz-words and five minute discussion before the next subject arises.
In my experience, that seems to be the majority of MBA's. I suppose it's a bit of a slanted view. Since my employer will pay for tuition up front there are a lot of engineers who went ahead and got an MBA from University of Phoenix or similar just because they could do it for free in their spare time without a ton of effort.
Re: (Score:3)
Köhler's effect doesn't apply to intellectual tasks, contrary to Ringelmann's.
In fact Köhler's effect depends on the motivation of the individual to do his best. He may try to be as good as the best performers, but he may also stop all efforts if the task seems too difficult.
According to Demming, the power of a group is equal of the sum of every individual plus the sum of their interactions.
In most groups, their interactions are negative, thus reducing the power of the group.
And I witnessed some g
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:4, Interesting)
You made the same mistake MBA guy cited in his post. Synergy is not about motivation, it's about the whole is better than the parts. A group indeed can be better than the individual, if synergy is present, whereas each member of the group contributes a particular piece of expertise or skill that the others don't have. I know the stereo-typical slashdot developer type thinks they are the best at everything, but part of being good is knowing what you don't know and depending on others for that part.
Of course just slapping a bunch of diversely skilled people together won't automatically ensure synergy.
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:5, Interesting)
No,the GP's talking about something different than having a bunch of fungible people pull on a rope.
Suppose some designers want a device to be sleek and lightweight. The engineers naturally choose plastic, but the designers are displeased -- the prototype feels cheap and flimsy. This is nonsense to the engineers: the numbers say the design is rugged and light, and numbers don't lie. They think the designers want the impossible: for the product to be light and heavy at the same time.
The reason "synergy" hasn't happened is that people have split into cliques of like-minded people, working at cross purposes to the other group and reinforcing conformity of thinking in their own. If they worked together they'd realize that "feels solid in the hand" is something distinct from "rugged", then produce a device that is lighter than the competition but slightly heavier than it looks.
This is "synergy" in the sense the GP is using it. More commonly, "synergy" means to have two or more complementary business areas. This is a real phenomenon which is easier to achieve and natural in small businesses where people tend to have a clearer view of the big picture -- at least until the dis-economies of scale force them to focus on one business area. With a larger businesses it takes planning.
The problem is that "synergy" scenarios are often poorly thought out. I worked for a small software developer that sold hardware as well, so we could be a "one stop shop" for our clients. Other aspects of the "one stop shop" worked well: training services led to custom software projects which led to products which led to more training. The problem with hardware was that it's a commodity. We had to sell a high precision GPS handhelds at market prices, but margins were small. Our customer base didn't produce enough volume to have specialists, so hardware was a big, unprofitable distraction.
The problem *isn't* that we have too many buzzwords, it's that we don't have enough critical thinking. "Synergy" is a valid concept, but it takes more than a happy scenario and a label to slap on it to make that scenario happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to disappoint you, but a group cannot produce more than the sum of each person.
It depends how you define the "sum", but it is very clear that some ways of organizing labor result in far more productivity than what you would get if each person on the team simply worked on their own. Adam Smith had a very memorable description of a pin factory in his book The Wealth of Nations:
Re:Abused, yes. Most abused, probably not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to make the case for putting "incentivize" near or at the top, because it's quite common, and used to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
For instance, when a politician talks about incentivizing investment, what he really means is that he wants to lower the capital gains tax. When a marketing executive says he wants to incentivize customer engagement, he means something along the lines of increasing sales with a "win a free iPod" contest or something similar. When somebody talks about incentivizing employees, they're talking about making coworkers compete each other for a limited number of perks (or remaining head count after a layoff) in the hopes that all employees work harder. And when a loan shark talks about incentivizing borrowers, he means breaking kneecaps.
Re: (Score:2)
The "innovation" word has certainly been abused in business contexts. However, to assert that it is the most abused word is less clear. After all, competition for that accolade (in a manner of speaking) is fairly stiff. There are many words from the MBA lexicon with even greater claim, such as leverage, incentivize, and similar linguistic horrors.
I would have gone for the word issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is abused but I think this sets too high a b (Score:5, Insightful)
"Vehicles that can fly" is a pretty huge incremental step from "Vehicles that can't fly". It's a big leap like that which we tend to call "innovation". Little steps aren't innovation- even though they're often even more useful. The Wright Brother innovated when they managed to put together the first working aeroplane- but it wasn't all that useful. When someone took their plane and made minor incremental improvements to speed, durability, capacity, etc. they weren't innovating, but they did create something truly valuable. When Boeing made the Jumbo Jet it wasn't an "innovation" (it's just a bigger version of what they already built)- but it was damned clever and useful.
Re: (Score:3)
"Vehicles that can fly" is a pretty huge incremental step from "Vehicles that can't fly". It's a big leap like that which we tend to call "innovation". Little steps aren't innovation- even though they're often even more useful. The Wright Brother innovated when they managed to put together the first working aeroplane- but it wasn't all that useful. When someone took their plane and made minor incremental improvements to speed, durability, capacity, etc. they weren't innovating, but they did create something truly valuable. When Boeing made the Jumbo Jet it wasn't an "innovation" (it's just a bigger version of what they already built)- but it was damned clever and useful.
You, along with many others here, have confused Innovation with Invention. Invention is about creating something new, while innovation is about taking advantage of inventions. Inventors draw inspiration from the natural world, while innovators draw inspiration from inventors. In a certain sense, innovations are obvious by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite seeing where the incremental difference between a horse (or a waterwheel) and a steam engine is.
Re:It is abused but I think this sets too high a b (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is more that someone didn't wake up one day and invent the steam engine out of thin air. What came to be known as the steam engine evolved slowly (over hundreds of years in the case of the steam engine) with incremental changes, not all at once.
Re:It is abused but I think this sets too high a b (Score:5, Funny)
you're also forgetting that MBA's and Financial People use "Innovation" all the time to take funds from people and transform them into vapor.
Re:It is abused but I think this sets too high a b (Score:5, Insightful)
Rounded corners FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
An innovation can be as small as a neat new way of handling some user interaction which nobody has done before or a heuristic which solves a hard problem but at the same time people from buisness or management backgrounds or courses do set an insanely low bar for what they consider "innovation".
If you were to believe buisness grads then "innovation" includes their "ideas" along the lines of "a website like *only better*" or "that thing which everyone is already doing but which I think is my neat new idea"
Or a pda with rounded corners, even if physically identical devices were shown in movies 25 years prior to the device being invented?
Re: (Score:2)
Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure that people understand that innovation isn't a black and white thing, and that some things are more innovative than others. Hence "the best thing since sliced bread" - i.e., something can be innovative but not as innovative as something else.
In the long term, something is innovative if we cannot live our daily lives without it. For example - indoor plumbing, light bulbs. In terms of always available communication the mobile phone was completely innovative. And the smartphone merely enhanced that and merged in myriad other devices into the single unit. A total innovation in itself, and making that conglomeration of functionalities usable in itself is clearly an innovation.
But maybe not as innovative as pre-sliced bread.
(note, I don't actually think that pre-sliced bread is that innovative, but maybe the means by which it can be pre-sliced and then not go solid or stale quickly is.)
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
What's really innovative about sliced bread is how they slice it without cutting the wrapper it comes in. Ingenious!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's really innovative about sliced bread is how they slice it without cutting the wrapper it comes in. Ingenious!
I've no mod points today, but I think you've just won the thread. :)
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion, an innovation is something that no one thought of before and that performs better than its predecessors. It is not a synonym for invention or discovery. Take graphene for example. People had been working with it in various forms (usually called "exfoliated graphite") for decades because it has all the interesting properties of graphite, but with an enormous surface-area to volume ratio. Theorists predicted interesting properties in single, isolated sheets of graphite, and there was some evidence to support it, but nothing really came of it. Then someone got the idea to use scotch tape to rip off a few layers of graphene from bulk graphite, which eventually lead to a Nobel prize. The innovation wasn't the scotch tape, or the graphene, or even using scotch tape to exfoliate a laminar material; it was using scotch tape to exfoliate graphite.
That one little innovation allowed all kinds of measurements that validated the intriguing properties of graphene and sparked a deluge of research across the physical sciences. Now, let's contrast it to something like the iPhone. Was that an innovation? I say no. Everyone had thought of the smartphone already--they were just waiting for the technology to catch up to expectation. People were using proto-iPads to keep track of stock trades decades [npr.org] before the iPod existed.
I think that in the business world, success is equivalent to money and innovation drives success, therefore anything that makes money is innovative. And since things that make money are generally popular, they use the word "innovation" to describe creating something that is popular, which essentially boils down to having the right idea or product and the right time.Thus Apple--which makes very popular, well-designed products--has become synonymous with innovation. I'm not knocking Apple; convincing people to enter their credit card information in order to use a device that they already bought is pure genius. But what have they done that is really de novo, that was more than just clever or marketed effectively?
Re: (Score:3)
1: the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty
Apparently there is no minimum size that can be applied to it's usage.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is nothing in your post you can't live without.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and we can all live as nomads without housing as well, but I'm sure the first person to wrap a few bearskins over a wooden frame would be thought of as innovative by modern standards.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
Ugg do that. Ugg dumb.
Ogg do that. Ogg smart.
Ogg take skin off bear first.
A good contender (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's those damn civil service exams. They've turned from testing wit to confirming robotic obeisance to a particular worldview.
too many words (Score:5, Interesting)
Reach out to instead of contact is the thing that bugs me right now.
George Carlin had a whole wonderful bit about this - "You will not hear me say: bottom line, game plan, role model, scenario, or hopefully."
http://www.iceboxman.com/carlin/pael.php [iceboxman.com]
No (Score:4, Insightful)
It's 'Syngergy', along with maybe 'Wellness'.
And why are salesmen now called 'Sales Executives'?
ARRGGHHHH!!
Re: (Score:2)
Because it takes a lot of skill and patience to manage a customer. Since a salesman is managing a customer therefore he must be management and if he's been doing it long enough, he can become an executive.
It's like calling a guy who writes Ruby a Software Engineer.. LOL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My salesman pet peeve is in the financial industry. Calling salemen "Financial Advisors" kills me. The only advice they're going to give you is how to steer you into financial products that increases their book the most - like vairable annuities.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Account Executive, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
It's Account Executive, you insensitive clod!
Account Executive is so oughties. Now everyone starts as a Key Account Manager.
Title creep is rampant, and part of the reason is corporation's reluctance to give people raises that match the overall income progression. In order not to lose employees, they have to be promoted to get a salary. And soon enough, you have everyone working at the higher grades, and they have to invent new grades to promote people into.
There was a time when a company had one veep. Everyone who in yore would have been a departm
Re: (Score:2)
I know a sales guy who's card reads "Executive Producer".
Patent Troll 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
"Innovation" is a favorite term of patent trolls and other technovultures to describe nebulous ideas as patentable products that are nothing more than vaporware.
Of course, the list of engineering carrion-feeders is long and distinguished. You can be a Fortune 100 company and still be a patent troll from the standpoint of registering ethereal brain-farts as IP.
I disagree (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Win a prize if you can spot the difference.
I hereby claim your prize:
"Spending" occurs in somebody else's district and/or is contracted with their largest campaign donors. "Investment" occurs in my district and/or is contract with my largest campaign donors.
It's sort of like how some adjectives change depending on who you're talking about: I'm persistent. You're stubborn. That guy over there is a pig-headed fool.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a weasel word. (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, it's an euphemism for "invention", but used to describe things that do not qualify for patents.
What should be said in its place is "improvement", "engineering" and anything done by "knowledge workers".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mind fucker.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I was going to post something about that.
Innovation is different than invention. What the summary describes in invention. Innovation is Revolutionary-lite. The idea of combustion engine was an invention. The creation of a feasible combustion engine was revolutionary. The arrangement and count of pistons is innovation.
A smartphone is innovative. Moving you product from the desktop to a mobile device is innovative.
A 3D printer is revolutionary.
Some interesting points about innovation (Score:2)
in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2VHf5vpBy8 [youtube.com]
Good old days syndrome (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
except radio telecommunications is innovative, and touchscreens too, and a fair few other bits and bobs that make up a smartphone. Calling it "a small computer" is not giving credit to the advanced technology that has gone into making it - even if you think its a commonplace device (kids of today, tut).
that said, rounding off the corners is NOT innovation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A small computer with some radio hardware is all they are. Pretending otherwise just makes you seem deluded. And they weren't an innovation, they were simply a progression of what had come before. There was no quantum leap despite what apple fanbois might have us believe since touchscreens have been around for decades and apple even used them on the dog that bombed called the Newton.
Re: (Score:2)
A small computer with some radio hardware is all they are.
You are proving my point. Go back 50 years and hand anyone this tiny box and tell them it's only a small computer. No big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how many many generations evolution can lead to something that seems new and special, but was really just the logical result.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was so obvious, then why didn't any of the cell phone companies with decades of experience do it first? Why did the first Android prototypes look like BlackBerry knock offs?
Re: (Score:2)
Because blackberry was - and still does - do a better job for mobile business use. There was no market for easy to use smartphones for sheeple until mass market GPRS/EDGE arrived allowing reasonable download speeds, which not coincidentaly was shortly before the iPhone appeared. Funny huh?
I want to punch people in the face... (Score:2)
When they say: "We're comitted to..... blah blah...."
it's Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Have business stopped using the word "Solutions"? If not... I vote for that word. I'd be willing to bet that the only solution ever accurately received from a Solutions Provider has been a cup of sugary coffee.
Re:it's Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Sugary coffee is most definitely a solution. And a suspension... To think of it, it's usually an emulsion, too, if it is with cream.
No - Passion is.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also... I'm doubtful as to whether most people really want to work with someone 'passionate'. A passionate person tends to ignore reason and logic and fly-off-the-handle when they don't get their way. I quite like to keep strong emotions out of my day-to-day job...
That, and "technology" (Score:2)
Every little engineering detail in software or hardware now is a "technology". A new kind of button is a technology. Inverting the direction of scroll is a technology. Least squares optimization is a technology.
Re: (Score:2)
The most abused word in business is ... (Score:2)
... "Success". Next is "successful people". There is an assumption that this is all about money. Of course for a business, it is. But for most people, once they have enough money to live comfortably (which the one percenters want to take from everyone for themselves), then what matters is happiness in life, such as family, and their art of living. Money is merely the means to get there because we have made that so.
Got to go with paradigm (Score:3)
Most definitely. (Score:2)
Coming up with new and cool ideas requires time and room for mistakes. These cost money. Bigger companies can't have that.
Re: (Score:2)
Rivited airplanes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The rivets in airplanes are only now being partially replaced.
You mean with composites, I presume? Composites have bee usd for years in aircraft, it's the main structural bits which may be due to move to composites in airlinres soon. In less critical roles they were adopted first and are slowly percolating down to the most conservative end of things.
That's not a lack of innovation. It's taking the inovation (composites), figureing out how to apply it to aircraft (innovative), then making sure it is very we
Re:Rivited airplanes (Score:4, Insightful)
The rivets in airplanes are only now being partially replaced.
There are good reasons to rivet together individual pieces of metal instead of welding them together. For one thing, a crack will move across a weld much easier than it can cross a riveted seam. Ships, skyscrapers, and bridges were also riveted together for the same reason. Today the engineers are getting better with materials and welding so eventually rivets will be obsolete, but there's nothing really wrong with using them.
Re:Rivited airplanes (Score:4, Insightful)
You can also replace panels much more easily if they're rivited. Like for instance when one of the catering supplies vehicles reverses into the side of a plane.
Every so often you will see planes with funny, oddly painted panels on the outside. Basically pretty much every part is replacable, and many do in fact get replaced throughout the life of the plane.
No - Reasonable is... (Score:2)
If you really want to see weaseling and lying in action - it's the word "reasonable". ,,, reasonable charges may apply
* Full-time employees and part-time employees may be required to work "reasonable" overtime and thereby qualify for overtime payments
*
* The service provider must provide reasonable levels of support after hours
It's the word for defining an undefined amout, that changes on whom is interpreting it and how they want the situation to pan out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget criminal law: "reasonable doubt" and "reasonable suspicion" are both key concepts.
Just like... (Score:2)
an economist writing a paper on technology, Innovation is an abused term all around. While the current smartphones might be more pervasive than innovative, they are being utilized and accommodated in more places. So in the end the application gatekeepers allow compatibility and I can do more on my phone than I ever could in the past. So is acceptance and exploitation of a technology, innovation?
Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
innovations involve things like the combustion engine or air conditioning
Pah. Obvious variations on the Carnot heat-engine cycle! As for indoor plumbing - that's just a small aqueduct with a lid and rounded corners!
Seriously, though, I think it's useful to have a word for "did not invent but turned into a practical and useful product". E.g. the first internal-combustion engine cars were not exactly user friendly - others adapted them for the mass-market. That takes the foresight to spot an invention with potential, a ton of cash to invest and a willingness to take risks.
The problem with the patent system is that only really works in a nostalgic fantasy world when an engineer declares "Gosh, I've just made an important discovery about thermodynamics - how do I share that with the scientific community without sacrificing my competitive edge in the steam engine market". It relies on the blunt instrument of the legal system to make tricky, subjective decisions on whether or not ideas are obvious, when even the experts in that field would probably argue.
If you could find a suitable genius polymath capable of making such judgements and prepared to work in a patent office, they'd probably get bored with all the bureaucracy and just sit there daydreaming about riding on the beams of light coming in through the window...
It is abused (Score:2)
Additionally (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. However our society doesn't seem to value scientists much either and that label isn't being abused like engineer.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, you're saying that the "sanitation engineers" riding around on trucks don't have 5 years of post-secondary education?
Words, words, words (Score:3)
After our recent out-sourced data-mining operation, our world-class Data Research team have concluded that "innovation" is not an overused word, phrase or best-practice.
Of course it is abused... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. "Green" is the most abused (Score:2)
buzzword (Score:2)
Yes and no. (Score:2)
But is it an abused word? Yes.
Every single big company claims they do it, but the closest thing we have to such is Apple stealing ideas from companies A and B and putting them together with rounded corners.
I read the 25 pages: no singularity, no population (Score:3)
I actually read the full 25 page paper, thus my late comment that will now be buried at the bottom of the heap. It was a fascinating perspective on the past millenium of human history -- I can't recall the last time I read a 25-page PDF word-for-word in one sitting. But in its stated goal of predicting "per capita output" of the "99%" for 2007-2100, it failed to consider three critical upcoming changes to human society.:
1. The Singularity. Estimates vary of when it will happen, centered on around 2050. Any forecast for 2007-2100 must account for the Singularity.
2. Population. The UN is forecasting "peak population" sometime during the coming century. By not taking into account population, the paper ignores the denominator of its thesis metric! As automation continues to replace human labor, it's possible that in the future, contrary to millenia past, population reduction may result in an increase of GDP per capita.
3. Sex. A combination of increasing wealth disparity and accelerating promiscuity will turn a greater share of the 99% into sex chattel to serve the 1%. The paper goes on and on about the "disgusting" work of shoveling horse excrement a century ago, but fails to consider the possibility that future work will be even more disgusting.
The overall irony here is that in this dystopia that I've painted here, that of human sex chattel and singularity robots serving the 1% with overall reduced population, the ratio GDP/capita might actually still be increasing. The paper author reveals a critical error in thinking when he writes, "By definition, whenever hours per capita decline, then output per capita must grow more slowly than productivity." That is certainly true in the Calculus "infentissimal" sense but ignores the possibility of the Singularity bringing exponential "output" that overwhelms a declining human population.
Re: (Score:3)
When robots start doing work autonomously, output becomes decoupled from "hours per capita".
So "By definition, whenever hours per capita decline, then output per capita must grow more slowly than productivity" is true now, but won't be true once robots act more autonomously than they do now.
And nothing of value was said... (Score:4, Funny)
At the end of the day, the innovative synergy of cloud paradigms thinking outside the box right sizes the alignment to break through the clutter and diversify clear goals by leveraging facetime with generation X and empowering globalization and proactively streamline organic growth to a win-win exit strategy by collaborating on the back-end the convergence of emergent behavior of quantum nano-scale design patterns using real-time scalability using the SaaS cloud framework to create immersion in the workflow of mobile mashup for convergence with web 2.0 using html5 to clickthrough the information superhighway at 4g speeds.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The size of the innovations isn't the problem, the problem is the size of what the patent office accepts as 'innovation'. Currently we're at "rounded corners" and it doesn't seem to be moving in an upwards direction.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Rounded corners?
That's a pretty major innovation if you're talking about aviation...
GrpA
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
This was modded funny, but it's actually a quite clever comment.
If GrpA had included some context it would be informative
Thing is, in aviation, the first passenger jet, the DH Comet started exploding in flight and no one knew why. Turns out that square corners in windows and doors is a bad idea when it comes to pressured vessels made from aluminium.
The failure modes of aluminium weren't perfectly understood at the time, and after huge amounts of testing (actually quite impressive amounts of testing using quite clever methods) they found that repeated pressurisation/depressurisation cycles led to the formation of microcracks at the corner's of windows and doors. This wasn't thought to be a big issue, because the best known metals (steel, iron) had quite gradual and benign failure modes.
Well, it turned out that aluminium fails quite spectacularly when it has any kind of stress damage.
The whole fuselage of the aircraft would basically rip apart in an explosive manner, and this was in a static testing tank so the 800km/h speed wasn't even factored in.
The solution?
Rounded rectangles for windows (or oval shaped windows)
The cockpit windows have sharp corners, but also have special reinforcement to decrease/distribute the stress.
So, rounded rectangles can actually be a major innovation :D
Re: (Score:3)
I have to protest this one.
Innovation means "renewment" from latin nova = new. If I do the same stuff in a new way, I am innovative. If I am doing something new with the same stuff, I am innovative. If I am doing something new with new stuff, I am innovative.
The problem is that like all marketing, "new" is a very flexible word, and so is innovation. From "now with 25% more vapor" to a complete cultural change with other social structures, hierarchies and priorities, all can be "innovative". The author argue
Re: (Score:3)
At least you'll die with clear skin...
Re: (Score:2)
From the end of the 15th page: > And in 1981, in the most famous of these ill-fated quotes, Bill Gates himself said in defense of the capacity of the first floppy disks, "640 kilobytes ought to be enough for anyone." http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9101699/The_640K_quote_won_t_go_away_but_did_Gates_really_say_it_ [computerworld.com] begs to disagree.
I believe he was referring to system memory because at the time, MS-DOS could only address 640k of memory.