Word-inflation is real.
Here at Purdue, a new building on campus is called the Innovation Design Center, which I find insultingly presumptuous.
Next thing you know Panda Express will call itself gourmet dining. Oh wait, they already do.
What I find interesting is the company uses that word in graphics but I never see it on official, indexed text on their site. It's like they're trying to fly under the radar with subliminally audacious advertising by minimizing the paper-trail.
But maybe that's overly paranoid, because it looks like they also have an Innovation Kitchen.
Is there a term for words that only really make sense retrospectively or maybe should be prefixed by "trying to" in the present tense?
Someone ~trying to be~ an innovator/ entrepreneur.
Innovation has always had externalities and unexpected downsides, but never in my lifetime has it felt so overtly predatory. It seems like the robber barons of the 19th century have returned, only this time they wear branded hoodies and give TED talks. One of those robber barons literally argues that monopolies are good for society.
It, and most bizword mission statements, boil down to honesty of effort and self-description labels. And I'm not a "hacker" and I'm not an "entrepreneur," because those are too bold and too easy to claim without widely-known genuine, unforgeable signals.
our BigCo has Innovation everything and everywhere. Recently we were trained on the process of creating and managing innovation - looks like a bastard chimeric child of Agile/Scrum and Six Sigma (no innovation here though :). And it seems like our marketing&sales is on verge of starting to sell pure innovation to customers who are already primed up by the current high-tech innovation hype-mania.
There are many places and contexts where people are doing incredibly stupid or inefficient things, and the application of simple centuries-old or apparently obvious ideas might well qualify as “innovation”.
For example, consistently using paper checklists in a hospital has a huge impact. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/10/the-checklist
“Aspirational” comes to mind
This author sounds like a deeply confused person.
When we acclaim someone we're praising them because of their contributions. Because our minds are finite, we use heuristics / proxies to measure those contributions. And those heuristics can be arbitrarily poor.
To put it in words you might like better, I think what he's saying here is that if he were going to write an algorithm that measures his success, he would have it measure how much he helped each person. Because the supercomputer running the algorithm is better at details than we are, it could bypass the often-misleading heuristics / proxies and measure his contributions directly.
When we're looking at our own lives, we have more detail available than when we look at others lives. So why not try to skip the proxies and optimize on the core concept?
And yes, it is important how you come to conclusions. Being right for the wrong reason means your still wrong, and it will catch up with you eventually.
I’m not saying not to help others - just that I think their mentality is still a reflection of the desire to achieve
As a Mormon my view was that god comes before self. God, really, comes before everything. I think that is still the case with most Mormons.
Even as someone who is not religious I think he makes quite an interesting argument for the metric used by many to measure success.
Maybe you are the one who us confused. Why would a being powerful enough to create the heavens and earth give one shit about your job?
To argue any other perspective would be repulsive.
Maybe instead of claiming someone is deeply confused, make an actual point.
I don't do it because a mythical all-powerful (but personified) creature, who I have never had contact with will judge me more favorably. That kind of thinking is just insane.
From that standpoint it is easier to understand what he is saying. Just as with my father (sleeping downstairs), he taught me to help other people and to be kind to others. I saw him doing it and realized how happy it made him, it made me want to be like him, so over the years I tried hard. I failed a lot, but over time I became a kinder, more thoughtful, more intelligent person.
The more kind I am, the more I serve, the more I understand _why_ it is so wonderful to help other people and why it is worth it whether it costs me little or whether I have to sacrifice a lot.
I view God in a similar light; I know he is more intelligent than I am, he knows things I don't, I can sense what kind of a being he is and I want to be more like _that_. I don't understand all the reasons, but I sense that he loves his children, just as my father downstairs loves me and my siblings. I trust that what God wants for me is right even when I would feel like I would rather do something else, so I persevere and I learn how wonderful it is and I remind myself of how much I want to be better. God is an example, both of what to do, and how wonderful it is to do it. That works not only in serving others, but in the details of how to do it and some nuances that I probably wouldn't come up with on my own.
I care about what God cares about because I love him. Presumably that is the same for Clayton Christensen.
Hopefully that helps explain the thinking a bit better.
Here's a wonderful short piece by Andy Weir (who wrote The Martian) that I am in love with and resonates with the very bit that you disliked. It's worth 2 minutes of your time:
His thinking is so simplistic that he fails to see how simplistic it is.
Then on "confused", well, he is simplistic and, in particular, concludes that the world is as simplistic as his observations, concludes that the universe and God are nearly that simplistic, so is willing to believe his stuff about God.
E.g., his description of the roles of data are absurdly simplistic. Look, Clayton guy, you have not even started even to scratch the surface of the nature, role, power, value, importance of data.
Also Clayton, your view of innovation is too simplistic and fails to cover all the more important cases of innovation funded since 1940 by the US DoD, NSF, NIH, NASA, DoE, and more and the work of, say, Viterbi at QUALCOMM, and the rest of the STEM fields.
hmmm. have you read his book "The Innovator’s Dilemma" ? I was shocked that it's already 25 years old. I think it maybe be the seminal book on disruptive innovation. Low-end disruption, new-market disruption, "job to be done" AFAIK - those are all Christensen.
If there's cliches there - I suspect they came about in the shadow of his body of work over the years.
A. Because their present customers, around which the entire business is optimized, don't want them (they want faster/better, not easier/cheaper). And finding and serving those other customers is a completely different ballgame. Really, a different business.
i.e. his point wasn't really about great new products, but why didn't existing businesses do them.
BTW It isn't very predictive; he predicted iphones wouldn't amount to much.
Well a hundred World Changing Mega Hyper Super Switchy Disrupt-o-Trends come along every month. Nobody knows which of them will pan out. Asking a giant company with a stable, reliable way of turning money into more money to drop everything at every rustle in the leaves is not reasonable.
ah, doing "consulting" does not count. Why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp6_3UQLi2Y