The Medici Effect by Frans Johansson
This little book has a lot to say to anyone who is interested in making things better in their chosen profession, home or life, in general. Basically, Frans Johansson, the author, posits that real innovation happens in two ways, directional and intersectional. Directional innovations are those that represent extensions or remixes within a know field of endeavor. Intersectional innovations are those that represent combinations of ideas or concept from two or more fields.
Imagine, as does the author, that you want to write an innovative piece of music. If you use the instrumentation, generally used harmonics and rhythms of rock and roll, you will have a given number of possible unique combinations. But, if you add to this mix the instrumentation, harmonics and rhythms of baroque orchestral music, you will have increased the number of possible unique combinations logarithmically. In this case, you would go from a couple of thousand possible combinations to several millions.
The resulting ideas or innovations have some interesting characteristics. They:
*are surprising and fascinating
*take leaps in new directions
*open up new fields of endeavor
*provide space for you to call your own
*generate followers.
The whole idea of intersectional innovation is being driven by some obvious forces in our society, but their relationship to innovation may not be apparent.
*Movement of people from one palce to another. Migration and immigration are at levels unprecedented in recent history. The person standing next to you is likely fewer than three generations in this country. Whether forced to immigrate because of war, famine or economic opportunity, the continued prosperity of our country depends on this force and as people move they bring with them perspectives and norms which are different from those already here. This diversity of perspectives and norms can be a positive force for creativity and innovation.
*Convergence of Science. I can remember when biochemistry courses first started to appear on university campuses. The is the study of chemistry in living organisms seems common place and obvious to us today. I assure you, this was not the case 50 or so years ago. Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS, states it simply, "Disciplinary science has died. It's gone." The natural sciences were among the first fields to begin to converge, but, s it turns out, they were just the trail blazers for what has become the norm.
*Leap in Computation. I do not believe that we could have anything close to the explosion on new information that we face daily without the computing power of the computer. When I first taught statistics using a new fangled gadget called a hand held calculator, my students were able to make more data driven decisions in each class than I had been able to do in seven years of work as a program evaluator. It was incredible to me then. Imagine my amazement watching classroom teachers using statistical algorithms to sort students for assignment to tutorial groups. I doubt they realize that is what they are doing, but it is and they are making very good decisions based on a simple score analysis program housed on their desk top computers.
As these three forces create more and more intersections, we simply must learn how to insert ourselves into them and find in them the new possibilities they present. Imagine finding a way to reduce costs, put increase technological power in the hands of students and make teachers truly creators of work that spawns learning. The answer to this is probably not in public schools as they exist today. But, the answer does lie in some intersection somewhere. We just have to prepare ourselves and our work groups to find it. That probably means:
*exposing ourselves and our groups to a more diverse range of cultures;
*wider informal learning, study groups on topics outside our profession;
*reversing our assumptions about what is important and effective; and
*taking on multiple perspectives to the issues we face daily.
Oh, and we need to be ready to fail and fail miserably. When we innovate directionally, the risk of failure is minimal and we plan for success. It is innovation in a known environment. Intersectional innovations have very high risk of failure and spectacular failure, at that. This sort of innovation requires that we plan to fail and be amazed when we do not. Because, when we do not fail, the results will likely equally as spectacular as would the failure be. Planning for failure is just not compatible with the way we have always done things. It could be that planning to fail and recover is a close to impossible idea that comes from an undefined intersection.
Read the book. It is an easy read and truly thought provoking.
Imagine, as does the author, that you want to write an innovative piece of music. If you use the instrumentation, generally used harmonics and rhythms of rock and roll, you will have a given number of possible unique combinations. But, if you add to this mix the instrumentation, harmonics and rhythms of baroque orchestral music, you will have increased the number of possible unique combinations logarithmically. In this case, you would go from a couple of thousand possible combinations to several millions.
The resulting ideas or innovations have some interesting characteristics. They:
*are surprising and fascinating
*take leaps in new directions
*open up new fields of endeavor
*provide space for you to call your own
*generate followers.
The whole idea of intersectional innovation is being driven by some obvious forces in our society, but their relationship to innovation may not be apparent.
*Movement of people from one palce to another. Migration and immigration are at levels unprecedented in recent history. The person standing next to you is likely fewer than three generations in this country. Whether forced to immigrate because of war, famine or economic opportunity, the continued prosperity of our country depends on this force and as people move they bring with them perspectives and norms which are different from those already here. This diversity of perspectives and norms can be a positive force for creativity and innovation.
*Convergence of Science. I can remember when biochemistry courses first started to appear on university campuses. The is the study of chemistry in living organisms seems common place and obvious to us today. I assure you, this was not the case 50 or so years ago. Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS, states it simply, "Disciplinary science has died. It's gone." The natural sciences were among the first fields to begin to converge, but, s it turns out, they were just the trail blazers for what has become the norm.
*Leap in Computation. I do not believe that we could have anything close to the explosion on new information that we face daily without the computing power of the computer. When I first taught statistics using a new fangled gadget called a hand held calculator, my students were able to make more data driven decisions in each class than I had been able to do in seven years of work as a program evaluator. It was incredible to me then. Imagine my amazement watching classroom teachers using statistical algorithms to sort students for assignment to tutorial groups. I doubt they realize that is what they are doing, but it is and they are making very good decisions based on a simple score analysis program housed on their desk top computers.
As these three forces create more and more intersections, we simply must learn how to insert ourselves into them and find in them the new possibilities they present. Imagine finding a way to reduce costs, put increase technological power in the hands of students and make teachers truly creators of work that spawns learning. The answer to this is probably not in public schools as they exist today. But, the answer does lie in some intersection somewhere. We just have to prepare ourselves and our work groups to find it. That probably means:
*exposing ourselves and our groups to a more diverse range of cultures;
*wider informal learning, study groups on topics outside our profession;
*reversing our assumptions about what is important and effective; and
*taking on multiple perspectives to the issues we face daily.
Oh, and we need to be ready to fail and fail miserably. When we innovate directionally, the risk of failure is minimal and we plan for success. It is innovation in a known environment. Intersectional innovations have very high risk of failure and spectacular failure, at that. This sort of innovation requires that we plan to fail and be amazed when we do not. Because, when we do not fail, the results will likely equally as spectacular as would the failure be. Planning for failure is just not compatible with the way we have always done things. It could be that planning to fail and recover is a close to impossible idea that comes from an undefined intersection.
Read the book. It is an easy read and truly thought provoking.
posted by Dr. C | 12:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home