What are the basic steps and processes towards new innovation? According to the innovative cycle there are two main parallel processes: Exploration and Exploitation.
The main idea is that the process which includes the initiation of new ideas, the creation and development of new inventions and the utilization them, have a form of a cycle that include two main spheres/directions:
Exploration - Creating new patterns, inventing new technologies. Include things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation, long term.
Exploitation - Optimizing an existing pattern by making a small steps. Include things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution, short-term, immediate, certain benefits.
An organization, such as a firm, a government or a political party has to choose how much of their resources to allocate to each of these activities. The innovation cycle is used broadly to describe the strategy of which a company is choosing in order to balance the need for new innovations with the urge to improve the existing ones and fully exploit their potential (An excellent example of the continuous rivalry between the two strategic needs of Pfizer).
The main idea is that the process which includes the initiation of new ideas, the creation and development of new inventions and the utilization them, have a form of a cycle that include two main spheres/directions:
Exploration - Creating new patterns, inventing new technologies. Include things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation, long term.
Exploitation - Optimizing an existing pattern by making a small steps. Include things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution, short-term, immediate, certain benefits.
An organization, such as a firm, a government or a political party has to choose how much of their resources to allocate to each of these activities. The innovation cycle is used broadly to describe the strategy of which a company is choosing in order to balance the need for new innovations with the urge to improve the existing ones and fully exploit their potential (An excellent example of the continuous rivalry between the two strategic needs of Pfizer).
This model reminds me some of the ideas described by Thomas Khun on his famous book: "on the structure of scientific revolutions". In his book (published in 1962) Khun made an analysis
of the history of science and was trying to establish a model of the basic mechanism underlying the progress and revolutions in science. In his book, Kuhn's argues that the evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities. In fact, the basic mechanism described by Khun includes three main phases of progress:
The first phase, which exists only once, is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is no consensus within the scientists on any particular theory, though the research being carried out can be considered scientific in nature. If the scientific community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods terminology etc, then the second phase, normal science, begins.
In The second phase puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is general consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed. Kuhn refers to this as a crisis, and they are often resolved within the context of normal science.
However, after significant efforts of normal science within a paradigm fail, science may enter the third phase, that of revolutionary science, in which the underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is established. After the new paradigm's dominance is established, a process known as Paradigm shift, scientists return to normal science, solving puzzles within the new paradigm. A science may go through these cycles repeatedly, though Kuhn notes that it is a good thing for science that such shifts do not occur often or easily. In order for a Paradigm shift to occur, Khun claim that a new young, unbiased, enthusiastic scientists needs to enter the field. The reason is that a fresh new innovative ideas could only grow in a clean-of the old paradigm minds…
The similarity lines between the Normal Science era to the Pattern Optimizing stage and of the Scientific Revolution to the Pattern Creating stage are clear. In order for a new idea/invention to come there is sometimes a need for a Paradigm shift something that is based on the accumulated subtle signs of “anomalities”.
Sources
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
http://www.mit.edu/~pjl/page2/files/exploration_exploitation.pdf
http://visualsignifier.com/kuhnhome.html
This is an interesting comparison. As you mentioned, both exploration and exploitation are carried in parallel and each company\organization need to divide their resources between them. However, for a real revolution to occur according to the paradigm theory a new, unbiased generation of scientist should rise. Could this demand for "clearness of the mind" be fulfilled in the same organization by creating separate departments?
ReplyDelete