15 November 2011 | Editor
Forbes has some interesting commentary on Steve Jobs and whether Malcolm Gladwell (yes, him again) is wrong in calling Steve a “tweaker” and therefore less of a visionary or “true” inventor.
One Forbes article argues that Gladwell gets Jobs wrong because Jobs went beyond tweaking, and no inventor really starts with a clean sheet of paper.
Another Forbes article cautions against viewing Jobs as just a tweaker, that is, don’t assume his “editorial sensibility” implies that innovation should be cheap, easy, incremental, and not involve any serious invention.
Obviously, we believe there’s more to all of this. Given our experiences, here are some of our thoughts –
This is where an approach like ethnography [pdf download] can help: it moves companies from not just “solving the problem right” (e.g., tweaking to a better version of a hot sexy mobile phone), to “solving the right problem” (e.g., launching such a phone with an app ecosystem that fundamentally changes the structure and economics of the industry). By capturing what people actually do, instead of just what they say they do, ethnography uncovers and reveals what people really need or want…even if they don’t know it. And you don’t have to be a visionary with a clean sheet of paper.For us, at the end of the day it’s all about use: by companies, by people, in the world.
[...] Was Steve Jobs an innovator or a tweaker?…The PARC blog says that there is more to the issue than meets the eye. It’s not so much a question of innovating vs. tweaking as it is finding the right problem to solve. A fascinating short read on a complex topic. [...]
[...] To tweak or not to tweak… that is (not!) the question – PARC blog – PARC Inc weighs in on Malcolm Gladwell’s opportunistic link-bait around Steve Jobs’ death [...]
ambient intelligence AR augmented reality authentication batteries brainstorming business of innovation CHI cleantech collaboration collective intelligence competitive edge computer vision context-aware computing contextual intelligence crowdsourcing curation data centers decision making disruptive innovation electric vehicles email energy energy efficiency epic conference ethnography ethnography in industry ethnomethodology ev everyware field of use government green HCI information overload innovation innovation culture innovation strategy intellectual property IP IT kiffets licensing lithium-ion location based services long tail malware materials minimum viable product mobile computing mobile devices & interfaces mobile security MVP natural language processing news NSF open innovation opportunity discovery organic electronics Pasteur's Quadrant personal information management pervasive computing phishing photovoltaics portfolio management printed electronics privacy QR codes recommendation systems research methodology responsive mirror SaaS search smart environment smart grid social analytics social computational systems social indexing social media social streams social web software as a service technology scouting technology trends terms thin film transistors twitter ubicomp user behavior modeling user centered design user experience user interface design v2g vehicle-to-grid virtualization virtual machines virtual reality web 2.0 Wikipedia
November 16th, 2011 at 9:39am
Posted by Chunka Mui, Forbes contributor
Thanks for jumping in on the Forbes piece. Your third point is especially important, and I’d go further by saying that clean sheets of paper aren’t just for Edison-like (or PARC-like) visionaries.
In fact, you can’t innovate unless you reexamine the problem with a clean sheet of paper. You don’t necessarily end there but you have to examine the problem and potential solutions from that lens.
Regards,
Chunka Mui