This is the beginning of a very exciting new stage of understanding.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
All in a March Saturday
 clipped from www.patriotledger.com
|
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Another of those - Why didn't I think of that?
www.u-lace.com
For anyone who follows TRIZ innovation methodology - you're probably seeing a number of the inventive principles at play.
The ones I've identified are:
Contradiction - I would like cool looking individual looking footwear but footwear is difficult to change.
What about the laces?
I would like to customise my laces but I can't because they are uniform in appearance and difficult to change.
Principles 15+17, dynamic parts and dimensionality change.
Make the laces elastic and shorter!
et Voila!
For anyone who follows TRIZ innovation methodology - you're probably seeing a number of the inventive principles at play.
The ones I've identified are:
Contradiction - I would like cool looking individual looking footwear but footwear is difficult to change.
What about the laces?
I would like to customise my laces but I can't because they are uniform in appearance and difficult to change.
Principles 15+17, dynamic parts and dimensionality change.
Make the laces elastic and shorter!
et Voila!
What stops an innovator from filing his intellectual property?
How many of you have a good idea, something you think is going to go far, but then do nothing about it?
What is the difference between the entrepreneur who takes the idea and turns it to cash, and the creative individual who does not?
I ponder this given I find myself in the latter position all too frequently. Admittedly it is difficult in my current role as inevitably the client owns the IP, whether it was their idea or not, when the thought is performed in their cheque book time, they own it. The other disadvantage that I see is that I signed a contract when starting with my current employer that said they basically own my ideas. It would be an interesting challenge and in hindsight it was not something I should have signed. Think about it, there is a clause in a contract that states any independent though, no matter when it was made or how it was arrived at, is owned by your employer.
That aside, I would doubt they would get in the way of progress, more likely profit would run both ways.
But this brings me back to my original thought - what stops us from taking the idea and turning it into intellectual property. Here's a list of hurdles I perceive (initially assumptions), and will over the next few posts figure out how to break down.
1. Lawyers are expensive, I'll obviously need one to file my patent.
2. Will someone find it valuable, if they do then how can I prevent them from just taking the idea - I'll be needing my expensive lawyers again to content infringement.
3. Seems like a lot of work writing a patent - I don't even know the process for filing.
I'm off to do my research now.
What is the difference between the entrepreneur who takes the idea and turns it to cash, and the creative individual who does not?
I ponder this given I find myself in the latter position all too frequently. Admittedly it is difficult in my current role as inevitably the client owns the IP, whether it was their idea or not, when the thought is performed in their cheque book time, they own it. The other disadvantage that I see is that I signed a contract when starting with my current employer that said they basically own my ideas. It would be an interesting challenge and in hindsight it was not something I should have signed. Think about it, there is a clause in a contract that states any independent though, no matter when it was made or how it was arrived at, is owned by your employer.
That aside, I would doubt they would get in the way of progress, more likely profit would run both ways.
But this brings me back to my original thought - what stops us from taking the idea and turning it into intellectual property. Here's a list of hurdles I perceive (initially assumptions), and will over the next few posts figure out how to break down.
1. Lawyers are expensive, I'll obviously need one to file my patent.
2. Will someone find it valuable, if they do then how can I prevent them from just taking the idea - I'll be needing my expensive lawyers again to content infringement.
3. Seems like a lot of work writing a patent - I don't even know the process for filing.
I'm off to do my research now.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
can you teach innovation
a recent panel discussion NSF discussed the need to empower the talented at a young age, K-12 to be precise.
Why are we all technically creative at a young age and then gradually become more focused and potentially less creative and innovative as we grow older. Can we blame standardised testing, the transition from "I want to know" to " you need to know", the point where a child has to pass tests to be deemed successful.
This is a topic that we're back tracking on now. If you've read any Christensen on the subject you'll observe that the standard way of teaching the youth came about because of the standard requirements from employers.
That's all changed now. Gone are the days when a company required droves of worker bees with identi-kit knowledge, come have the days when independent thoughts either concentrate your efforts up a corporate ladder or invoke the ability to create your own ladder with your own creativity - a spin off that whether it succeeds or fails, is bound to ultimately provide a positive experience.
So, bring us back to innovation, can it be taught?
Certainly sections of the Russian education movement form the 70's onwards thought so with the introduction of Genrich Altshuller's theories on inventive problem solving (TRIZ www.triz-journal.com)
My own thoughts on this are that innovation is as much a science as any type of learning can become a science. What is a science......a series of theories. Then what are theories - a series of observations that when interpreted begin to show a pattern. And observations - well, surely driven by our curiosity we make observations. So, if this is the case, the science of innovation can be a series of inquisitive observations.
Does anything exist that maps our creativity, or the creativity of mankind?
Intellectual property and the documentation of ideas, good or bad, are mapped as patents. In fact, patents are significantly easier to follow as citations within patents mean we can see why ideas have come to fruition. If the idea was poor, then it is unlikely to be cited, certainly not very far through the evolution of the innovative course.
So, we can now think about a Science of Innovation as a series of observations of the patents....can we identify trends or similarities in the thought process behind the ideas - can we formulate theories that might one day govern the approach to making a product better - or differentiated whether it is a service or gadget.
These are all questions that the NSF is thinking about fostering in the talent of today, for use in the economies of tomorrow.
I think it's going to be interesting, and I think it's going to be a race.
Why are we all technically creative at a young age and then gradually become more focused and potentially less creative and innovative as we grow older. Can we blame standardised testing, the transition from "I want to know" to " you need to know", the point where a child has to pass tests to be deemed successful.
This is a topic that we're back tracking on now. If you've read any Christensen on the subject you'll observe that the standard way of teaching the youth came about because of the standard requirements from employers.
That's all changed now. Gone are the days when a company required droves of worker bees with identi-kit knowledge, come have the days when independent thoughts either concentrate your efforts up a corporate ladder or invoke the ability to create your own ladder with your own creativity - a spin off that whether it succeeds or fails, is bound to ultimately provide a positive experience.
So, bring us back to innovation, can it be taught?
Certainly sections of the Russian education movement form the 70's onwards thought so with the introduction of Genrich Altshuller's theories on inventive problem solving (TRIZ www.triz-journal.com)
My own thoughts on this are that innovation is as much a science as any type of learning can become a science. What is a science......a series of theories. Then what are theories - a series of observations that when interpreted begin to show a pattern. And observations - well, surely driven by our curiosity we make observations. So, if this is the case, the science of innovation can be a series of inquisitive observations.
Does anything exist that maps our creativity, or the creativity of mankind?
Intellectual property and the documentation of ideas, good or bad, are mapped as patents. In fact, patents are significantly easier to follow as citations within patents mean we can see why ideas have come to fruition. If the idea was poor, then it is unlikely to be cited, certainly not very far through the evolution of the innovative course.
So, we can now think about a Science of Innovation as a series of observations of the patents....can we identify trends or similarities in the thought process behind the ideas - can we formulate theories that might one day govern the approach to making a product better - or differentiated whether it is a service or gadget.
These are all questions that the NSF is thinking about fostering in the talent of today, for use in the economies of tomorrow.
I think it's going to be interesting, and I think it's going to be a race.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A unique view
I find myself in a unique position with my job/hobby. Each day I garnish my brain with new information supplied to me by clients who wish to do the same to their products and processes.
Innovation is always the theme, like a bi-line to a catchy add or for some, another dart in an already complicated board.
What's it like - teaching Innovation at the highest level.
Over the coming months, and dare I say years, I want to share with you some of my innovation anecdotes. I can't necessarily tell you exactly where they have come from, but I want to capture the essence of what I am seeing. Why? Because I am privileged enough to hear them in the first place.
So here's the first, to kick this series off.
Question - how do you convince someone that something is worth learning?
Response - Allow them to convince themselves. Seems straight forward and sufficiently nebulous to completely avoid answering the question.
I'll give this a context. A higher education teacher asked me how she could get her students to spend more time on projects she considered worthwhile for them to learn.
The students had chosen to take the class so they had clearly considered the value it would bring, at least in the syllabus. This does not automatically mean that the way in which the class is taught is most appropriate for the student to learn, and should there be a miss match it is usually the student who loses interest first. I'm engaged to an educator and consider myself one albeit to company students as opposed to pre-adult learners in a school setting. In either setting the student will likely have a different learning path than the teacher and it is important to recognise that. Without it the student is unlikely to learn and from the beginning turn away from the course. So, it is already widely acknowledged that students learn differently, and not always in the way an educator teaches.
There is a second important consideration, and that's how the student is assessed. It was here that the teacher I was discussing this with was given the greatest cause for thought.
She told me that she spent time devising the assessment method and looked to assess in a variety of ways. This was great to hear, but why then is she also asking how to convince a student that something is worth learning?
Do students gravitate to subjects and courses they feel they will have success in?
How are we gauging success.
How are we adapting as educators to assess the learning and understanding capability of a student. Do we go beyond the norm or projects, written answers, class discussions?
The teacher in question - and certainly this educator, is going to strive to find more meaningful assessment methods for our students - to ensure their learning.
And an interesting aside - in the world of Business (I am a consultant) educators are valued at how well a student adopts a practice, in my case, my success is entirely dependent on the adoption of a piece of software - not how successful they are, but how successful they are at putting into practice what I have taught them.
Can the same paradigm be used in the education system - now that's novel!
Innovation is always the theme, like a bi-line to a catchy add or for some, another dart in an already complicated board.
What's it like - teaching Innovation at the highest level.
Over the coming months, and dare I say years, I want to share with you some of my innovation anecdotes. I can't necessarily tell you exactly where they have come from, but I want to capture the essence of what I am seeing. Why? Because I am privileged enough to hear them in the first place.
So here's the first, to kick this series off.
Question - how do you convince someone that something is worth learning?
Response - Allow them to convince themselves. Seems straight forward and sufficiently nebulous to completely avoid answering the question.
I'll give this a context. A higher education teacher asked me how she could get her students to spend more time on projects she considered worthwhile for them to learn.
The students had chosen to take the class so they had clearly considered the value it would bring, at least in the syllabus. This does not automatically mean that the way in which the class is taught is most appropriate for the student to learn, and should there be a miss match it is usually the student who loses interest first. I'm engaged to an educator and consider myself one albeit to company students as opposed to pre-adult learners in a school setting. In either setting the student will likely have a different learning path than the teacher and it is important to recognise that. Without it the student is unlikely to learn and from the beginning turn away from the course. So, it is already widely acknowledged that students learn differently, and not always in the way an educator teaches.
There is a second important consideration, and that's how the student is assessed. It was here that the teacher I was discussing this with was given the greatest cause for thought.
She told me that she spent time devising the assessment method and looked to assess in a variety of ways. This was great to hear, but why then is she also asking how to convince a student that something is worth learning?
Do students gravitate to subjects and courses they feel they will have success in?
How are we gauging success.
How are we adapting as educators to assess the learning and understanding capability of a student. Do we go beyond the norm or projects, written answers, class discussions?
The teacher in question - and certainly this educator, is going to strive to find more meaningful assessment methods for our students - to ensure their learning.
And an interesting aside - in the world of Business (I am a consultant) educators are valued at how well a student adopts a practice, in my case, my success is entirely dependent on the adoption of a piece of software - not how successful they are, but how successful they are at putting into practice what I have taught them.
Can the same paradigm be used in the education system - now that's novel!
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
more on innovation
 clipped from www.irishentrepreneur.com
|
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)