Alexia Blogs

HP Garage, Addison Ave, Palo Alto, CA

The way we interact with technology changes dramatically from generation to generation. If, during the heyday of punch card computing in the 1950’s, a programmer was presented with a mouse and graphical operating system, I’m sure they’d balk. Imagine explaining that punch cards are redundant and that the programs they wrote were stored in magnetic signatures on a disc.

Changing the hooks of how we interact with technology is where consumer-facing product innovation nowadays. Look at the way the iPhone changed how people think and interact with mobile phones. The web browsing experience is one of the best in the market and, possibly, the truest experience that end users have to laptop or desktop browsing. The iPhone does it very well. It’s an opportunity for other providers including Windows Mobile to push past previous conventions and truly, think innovative.

Pat originally asked the question, “Has technology set over-innovated?” I have to say yes and no. It depends on what angle you take when looking at the question.

Why yes? Well, look at the amount of research material that is produced year over year in academic institutions. Only a tiny percentage of this research makes into commercial products within a generation. A classic example of this is Boolean algebra. George Boole published his formal treatise on systematic logical reasoning in 1854 with his seminal paper, ‘An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities’ It sat in dusty tomes recognised only by mathematicians of an obscure offshoot of logic until Claude Shannon came across it in an undergrad class and saw potential in ones and zeros. Shannon used these ideas for his Masters in 1937 (that was used to produce a 1940 paper), ‘A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits’ demonstrating a practical application of Boolean logic in electromechanical relays. Look at the time gap - eighty-three years. It took eighty-three years for the founding principle of digital electronics to be uncovered. 

I’m sure there’s thousands, if not tens of thousands of rude gems just like Boolean algebra waiting to be uncovered, polished and scientifically applied to solve the challenges of today. But are we looking for them? And as the research churn increases from third-level institutions and defunct dot-com bombed companies, are we losing some of the best ideas in the ruck? I’m not saying that research and innovation budgets need to be cut, in fact, they need to be strengthened. By introducing a separate stream of interdisciplinary research in connecting the dots and promoting collaboration between third-level institutions and private brain tanks, researched ideas could be mangled and used to advance the frontier of science and consumer products. 

The truth is, that at bleeding edge of research innovators are pushing past into the undiscovered regions of science or applied science in technology. Compared to being at the coal-face of advanced research, looking at the adoption levels of that research in Consumerland must be disheartening. Consumer offerings must look like they have reached a plateau, in terms of advancement. After all, what more could consumers want with new technology? Who would ever have dreamt that we’d be watching video over the Internet back in dark days of 14.4K modems.

But there’s a need for innovation. Where real innovation must continue to come into play, is to find more connected scenarios for the documented research and for the ideas yet to come. Innovation comes by asking “What If?”, not just what. And sometimes the freshest thinking comes from brains from outside a research stream, that can question norms and convention. Plenty of Irish institutions have research colleges dedicated to streams of science, mathematics and materials technology, but how many have an entire initiative composed of interdisciplinary researchers dedicated to seeing potential in research and cross-pollinating their experience into it? And by interdisciplinary, I mean artists, writers, mathematicians, biologists, physicians, economists and the list goes on. I’m not aware of any. Are you? 

So, yes we are over-innovating as the ideas need to be churned and digested enough to realise their full potential. However, innovation needs to continue to ensure that we are examining research with open minds and connected human scenarios in mind. 

Robin and Damien chipped in with their thoughts. Go read them if you haven’t already.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am and is filed under Geekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.