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!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)