This story over at Wired News "Matrix Cam Spies Bullets" jumped off of my Gmail account (and the embedded top of page RSS reader) for two reasons - it's Wired (I still have the first issue that I randomly picked up while living in Austin, TX many years ago - and I'm still a subscriber now), and The Matrix is a movie that I almost didn't see, but that clearly launched a revolution in film and science fiction storytelling.
But why mention the article here?
First let me sum up the story - Nova Sensors has a method for tracking objects (such as bullets) that are moving VERY fast. Combine this with adaptive armor or weapons that can deflect/destroy inbound objects, and it changes the game of warfare. It's science fiction come to life - and continues to show the evolution of warfare into smarter weapons and smarter defenses.
So, the tie to my interests - I continue to see people both overestimating and underestimating what it means to be Innovative.
This article nicely hits both ends of the spectrum - with a quote from Mark Massie, president of Nova Sensors:
"This is truly breakthrough technology in terms of new capabilities for
infrared focal plane arrays."
This is what people generally think of when they think Innovation - what I've been calling "BIG I Innovation."
Later in the article:
Robert Fisher, a professor at the University of Edinburgh's School
of Informatics in the United Kingdom, says the idea is not new, but
getting it to work is. "It looks like a perfectly feasible approach," he says. "There have
been laboratory developments of a variety of these foveal sensors over
the past 10 years, but the biggest issue has been money. Obviously the
military has a different kind of market and they have been able to get
funding."
And here is the "small i innovation" flipside that I've been talking about - an idea which is not new, but which is being productized, and perhaps in a different realm than initially conceived.
As you may have noticed, I've been studying TRIZ, the Russian Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (see/hear the podcasts on those fronts), and a key concept in TRIZ is that someone, somewhere, has solved the exact problem (or problems) that you currently have, and the task is merely to reformulate your problem generically so as to find the solutions that will best fit your specific version of the problem.
I'd learned this concept years ago when I was teaching myself PERL (a scripting language used very heavily in web applications in Web 1.0 days) - the concept there was "There's More Than One Way To Do It" (or TMTOWTDI ["Tim Towdy"] as it's known in the PERL community). Why that concept didn't hit me earlier in my research into innovation - I'm not sure.
Point being, innovation (BIG I or small i) isn't about magic and creating something from nothing out of the ether. Blind stumbling is not a reliable method for inventing, or innovating, or being creative. Tools that allow you to more systematically DO innovation (personally, organizationally, nationally, worldwide) DO exist, and even the most naturally innovative people in the world would be even more innovative if they were to systematically approach innovation.
What are you and your organization doing to systematically improve your innovation capability? Let's discuss it here, or feel free to call 781-268-0716 and leave me a message
regarding this post. Any interesting comments I get I will post to the
blog (unless you prefer not to get your 15 megabytes of fame). NOTE: There is a limit of 2 minutes per
recording, so you will need to be somewhat brief. Have your caffeine
fix in advance of the call ;).