Comments

The mission statement of Johns Hopkins includes "cultivate their capacity for life-long learning, to foster independent and original research, and to bring the benefits of discovery to the world.' A nice statement.

Posted by gerson barbosa at January 13, 2009 11:28 AM

"Bonfire of your vanities: Burn your press clippings!"

This seems like an ongoing consistent effort, be the achievement small or large in the press or not.

Thanks!

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 13, 2009 11:38 AM

"cultivate their capacity for life-long learning"

Love this at the level of mission statement--ought to be universal.

Posted by tom peters at January 13, 2009 2:44 PM

Tom - please include the innovative way your "Greatest Generation of Debt & Incompetence" has refined "Pay for Play" to a fine science.

The historical & hysterical model for this is of course Britain's "House of Lords" - plus their nefarious "play for pay" monarchy! :>)

Posted by Contraire at January 13, 2009 7:15 PM

Tom - one of your quotations includes "Reward excellent failures. Punish mediocre success." How would you judge the sub-prime crisis in this respect? The mantra of "break-through innovation" seems to foster excessive risk seeking. I am asking this question from a German industry perspective. German industrial companies have been successful in incremental (process-related) innovations over a long-term period. The American perspective of innovation seems to be more short-term based on a "hit-big-or-fail-miserably"-approach. What is your opinion?

Posted by Andreas at January 14, 2009 4:01 AM

Andreas, we'd need two bottles of good California wine or a case of [good by definition] German beer to scratch the surface on your great question.

I hardly think the sub-prime situation merits "excellent" failure. To me an "excellent failure" is a bold try that does not work out but from which we learn a great deal. The mediocre success is an IS systems installation the takes a year and costs a ton of money and, while doing no harm, doesn't do much good either. Usually "mediocre succcesses" are bold tries that are so politically dumbed down that the result is hardly worth the time or resources.

As to Germany and the U.S., the answer is that it takes all kinds. The German Mittelstand are masters at dominating tightly drawn markets with technical excellence that improves with time; their export record in high-end products is matchless. Mostly missing in Germany are the Silicon Valleys or the Cambridge biotech clusters. While our record is tarnished at the moment, the American strength is in "disruptive" technologies--and also in our extraordinary service sector that is masterful at exploiting "hard" innovations from all over the world to create efficient marvels such as FedEx or UPS or Wal*Mart.

Both models work--as do others such as the Japanese "model", the Indian model despite its current problems, the Chinese model.

Breakthrough innovation--including in the financial services and including big failures therein--is important. (Like it or not, the exploding global economy over the long haul is a product of the new financial products.) And innovation through perfecting current excellence works too. And both have major weaknesses.

There's lots and lots and lots more to say on this.

FYI, for an entirely fresh perspective on innovation I strongly suggest Amar Bhide's amazing book, "The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World."

Posted by tom peters at January 14, 2009 7:23 AM

Andreas, I studied the Mittlestand around 1990, perhaps becoming the first American to do so extensively, and did a U.S. TV show featuring Trumpf, Playmobil (Brandstatter Enterprises), Rationale, makers of the "combi-cooker," and others. I wrote up my findings in "Liberation Management," my 1992 book. Shooting the show in Germany was a great pleasure--including the pub stop where I was shot (filmed!) watching the pouring of and imbibing the results of the perfectly served lager, using, as I recall, 300-year-old principles.

Posted by tom peters at January 14, 2009 7:34 AM

Great question and awesome response. Thank you, both. This line was quite fascinating in particular:

"the American strength is in 'disruptive' technologies--and also in our extraordinary service sector that is masterful at exploiting
'hard' innovations from all over the world to create efficient marvels such as FedEx or UPS or Wal*Mart."

So, true, not to mention the Internet itself. There is something else that appears to be quite disruptive, and while not a "hard innovation," blogging has annoyed quite a few business and political types.

Often the blogger is unidentified and points to very relevant undeniable issues that the perhaps the politician or CEO cannot address effectively as they are used to being extreme deference and excused for their lack of innovation and ability to think progressively on their feet.

A recommendation might be for politicians, CEOs, and management gurus, to all get blogs and answer the public directly. Maybe this will spark disruptive innovation. There are undoubtedly those what are hired to surf the Net to glean from bloggers, but I wonder if those in power have gotten the often relevant messages of identified and unidentified bloggers.

This point of the presentation seems relevant here:

"Social Networks. The emerging social networking tools become the accelerator for the process described and implied in these first dozen ideas. Nothing automatic about this—must be thought through, overseen (but also loose-as-a-goose, not judgmental). Emergent leadership from hither, thither, and yon becomes the de facto 'leadership for innovation' in the organization."

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 14, 2009 7:42 AM

Recently, I wrote here about Twitter. I was opposed to such on national and international issues. But I was wrong. I can now see how Twitter can be used disruptively in light of the above "social networking" context and make a difference.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 14, 2009 8:07 AM

From reviews of "The Venturesome Economy" at Amazon.com:

“In [Bhide’s] view, many analysts put too much emphasis on the production of new technological ideas. Instead, he observes, the real economic payoff lies in innovations in how technologies are used.” -- Steve Lohr, New York Times.

“Arguments for protectionism are based on fears that are wholly at odds with the evidence. The experience of recent years does not support the idea that millions of jobs will be outsourced to cheap foreign locations... [Amar Bhide argues] it is in the application of innovations to meet the needs of consumers that most economic value is created, so what matters is not so much where the innovation happens but where the 'venturesome consumers' are to be found. America's consumers show no signs of becoming less venturesome, and its government remains committed to the idea that the customer is king.” -- Matthew Bishop, The Economist.

“Innovation everywhere is a boon to America. That's the argument from [Bhide] who sees hidden value in America's unique ability to integrate and consume big new ideas, no matter where they're spawned.” -- Kirk Shinkle, U.S. News & World Report.

"A rigorously researched and original analysis that challenges much received wisdom about the process of innovation, particularly in the U.S. ... In his analysis of innovation, Bhide distinguishes between cutting-edge scientific discoveries and ideas--what he calls 'high-level' know-how--and the kind of know-how needed to turn these ideas into innovative products and services to meet the needs of specific markets ('mid- and ground-level innovation'). He says not enough attention has been paid to this mid- and ground-level activity, in particular to the commercial and organizational effort needed to turn scientific breakthroughs into useful products, or to how well America does it.” -- Fergal Byrne, Financial Times.

“[Bhide's] core message is that you need innovative consumers. This, rather than the cutting-edge stuff in the university labs or the research departments of the multinationals, is what gives America its edge.” -- Hamish McRae, The Independent.

Posted by tom peters at January 14, 2009 8:24 AM

“In [Bhide’s] view, many analysts put too much emphasis on the production of new technological ideas. Instead, he observes, the real economic payoff lies in innovations in how technologies are used.” -- Steve Lohr, New York Times.

Of course that is true. So what. I'm sure The Beatles made more money than whoever invented the electric guitar or multitrack recording. But without either technology, there would have been no Beatles.

Posted by zed at January 14, 2009 9:39 AM

zed - C'mon, man. You are becoming a one man band.

So, I'll throw this back at you: "Of course that is true. So what."

What will you now do?

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 14, 2009 10:01 AM

I'm Judith's Dittohead on this one.

Posted by tom peters at January 14, 2009 10:22 AM

is innovation getting harder or easier?

(I don't mean in the context of this current economic situation - I mean this decade vs last decade vs 100 years ago)

Posted by Paulh at January 14, 2009 11:51 AM

"Breakthrough innovation--including in the financial services and including big failures therein--is important. (Like it or not, the exploding global economy over the long haul is a product of the new financial products.)"

Tom - have you officially lost your mind!? More like Tom's world of Ready, Aim, Fire created the Greatest Debt & Incompetence Generation with Tom as czar of bankrupt finance theory! :>)

London, Iceland & Ireland were so "adept" at finance that now they teeter on bankruptcy thanks to your new "financial products"! The math quants have made finance so complex almost no one knows the depth of exisitng & future radical bubbles. Meanwhile the British have only a stiff upper lip left as the Conservatives kick Labour to the curb like the soccer hooligans they are!

Money use should be more like a utility with retail & commercial focus & CEO's making $250k like utility managers counterparts! A friend of in-laws, Robert Johnson, BET founder - said last Friday on CNBC - the recovery will not start for another 24 months - thanks for that! Shall we put Russian peacekeepers in London as a "new financial product"!?

Posted by Contraire at January 14, 2009 6:41 PM

Tom – Thank you for your speedy and elaborate response, which has been - indeed - thought-provoking.

A glass of good California wine (being a Berkeley graduate 1990!) has inspired me to ask you a follow-up question.

Let's assume the hidden value of America lies in its unique ability to integrate and consume big new "break-through" ideas:

How could the American economy end up in such a poor shape - a once world-leading industrial economy left with only a few pockets of undisputed “innovation excellence”?!

You have been spreading the gospel of “innovation excellence” among many smart (American) business leaders over the last 25 years:

Do you agree with the view that the American corporate governance system may have failed and effectively crowded out “good old economy” virtues such as “innovation excellence”?

Danke!

prescription free viagra

Posted by Andreas at January 15, 2009 6:05 AM