The basic premise, for those of you who do not like to click on in-line links, is that the drive to innovate is all well and good, but it has less direct impact on our day-to-day lives than proper maintenance of our infrastructure. That often innovation does not take into account the effort needed to maintain the new technology or idea.
They take it a step farther and blame the drive to innovate and entrepreneurship on the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots. Because we all want the latest and greatest, the fastest and fanciest, we reward those that create them disproportionately to those that then have to fix those new products when they break through their performance envelope.
While I do not disagree with the authors (they have fancy, unassailable letters after their names), I do think that they are missing a few things. Read on.
Lab to Market
The greatest rewards in the world of innovation are not to those that create a new idea, but to those that are able to mass produce it. Many of the people that we think of when we think of great innovators did not actually create something new, but figured out how to make it faster, cheaper, easier than their competition.
Think Henry Ford with the Model-T. He did not create the automobile, just figured out how to mass produce it. Steve Jobs did not create the personal computer or the MP3 player or the smart phone, he (and the VAST team beneath him at Apple) figured out how to make them approachable to the average person.
From this perspective, there is still an innovation reward, but it does not lie with the inventor but with the person/company with the best logistics, the best user experience (and the best marketing).
Military Drive
Another angle on this is military spending. The defense industry is often THE driving force for innovation within any society. New materials, new skills and new technologies often appear in the armed forces before they are available to the society as a whole.
And one of the lessons that militaries learn over and over again is that a new, high powered weapon only wins you battles when it works. Most new weapon systems are evaluated not only for their ability to eliminate a threat, but also on how well an entry level soldier is able to maintain it. Then the contract is awarded to the company that hired the nephew of that state's Senator. But at least there is some thought as to the need to maintain a new system in field.
Innovation in Maintenance
The final thought that I have on this subject revolves around the plumber or electrician or line worker who creates a new and better way to solve a maintenance problem. That is also innovation and it is often monetized. Just watch ads during late night TV or on TV shopping channels. There are new ways to run wires through walls without pulling down the wall. Or that help clean a clogged pipe. Or to fix a dent in a car/wall/refrigerator. Almost every cleaning product ever invented fits into this category.
Disposable
Ultimately, I do agree with the authors that, in a capitalist society, too much energy is put on creating something new instead of maintaining the current. There is more money to be made on tossing out an older car or TV or mobile phone and getting a new one than in fixing that older product. Heck, we often throw out perfectly good products because they are not the latest. However, much of that is driven more by marketing than need. By desire instead of a measurable increase in performance.
The solution? Limit marketing to awareness and be done. Ensure that there are consumer (and larger) protections against planned obsolescence. Create tax depreciation schedules for consumer products like cars and smartphones.
But none of that will happen because then fewer cars and smartphones will be sold. That means fewer jobs making them and selling them. Which means fewer people who can afford the stuff in the first place. Or pay taxes in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment