We have come to love Innovation as the engine of growth and progress. Being innovative is no longer a pejorative, but a compliment; even totalitarian Governments set up innovation ecosystems and Analysts put innovation premium on company stocks. The Corporations want to reinvent themselves as colourful innovation hubs, the universities justify drawing public money for they bring about innovation, and it is not unusual for entrepreneurs in India to pray in front of an idol so that they can be more innovative. In short, innovation is eating the world - and, everyone, with power and money, wants to bring about innovation.
As we celebrate innovation in conferences, it is easy to forget innovation is usually a complex affair. We love to speak about magical discoveries: A naked Archimedes running through the streets as he discovered his law, Galileo figuring out the secrets of the pendulum in one night after observing the Cathedral's chandelier swinging about, Darwin's great insight hitting him at a moment of reading Malthus, so on and so forth. But, each of these stories, as we know now, were invented later: The process of discovery is longer and more twisted than any of these stories suggest. Even these brilliant and epoch-making scientists were talking to others, making mistakes and failing over and over again, before finally making sense of it all. And, indeed, innovation, which is a process of applying these discoveries into the context of use, is even more so: It is hardly an input-output process that our discussions make it look like.
Moreover, innovation is often a fringe affair. Like the golden rule of all newspaper stories being that of men biting dogs, one could almost certainly surmise that the innovators are usually not the ones who talk about making innovations. It is hard to know how and when you make innovation, and besides, innovations are, by definition, disruptive (I shall come to the distinction of incremental and disruptive innovation shortly). If innovation is making no one uncomfortable, is it innovation at all? Therefore, being suspicious of all the celebration of innovation - by universities, governments, businesses and banks - is common sense: They are calling something innovation which it is not.
Which brings me to this question of incremental and disruptive innovation, so neatly formulated by Clayton Christensen and his followers. One has to give credit to them for making innovation such a cool thing, one that even powers-that-be can live with. However, while putting innovation at the heart of value creation, they have also done two other things. First, they have expropriated the label 'innovation' to slap it around everything that the corporations do, making redundant words such as 'improvement' or even 'tinkering'. Second, by making 'disruption' a feature of innovation - and using it in a narrow context of creating new consumers - they took away the discomfort out of disruption, and made it a bottled and homogenised genie. So, anything to do with change became 'innovation', which can be implemented top-down and stopped and started at will, working inside the market forces rather than outside it. This was a great one to make innovation popular and meaningless.
On the other hand, historical reading of innovation paints a different picture: Innovative 'ecosystems' flourished not at will, but unexpectedly; the powers-that-be did not decree them, but, more often, tolerated them; they were brought about by intermingling, rather than through enforcing homogeneous communities (such as that of alumni of elite schools, who would have very similar life experiences); they happened at a time usually when a disadvantaged community was in ascendancy, and they were suddenly enabled to sit at the same table as the privileged one; and their champions were people who were essentially outcasts. And, for this mythology of great universities and schools leading innovation, much can be said, but never better than F M Conford's summary of Cambridge culture: "Nothing must be done for the first time". Post-War America made a virtue of a University-Military complex, which created the tools that spawned innovation by enabling the fringe, but it is easy to forget the fringe and see innovation purely in terms of infrastructure.
Innovation is thus, I shall argue, redefined and rendered meaningless in the current use. One of the great capabilities of the capitalist system has been to invent new demands - who would have wanted to shell out a fortune to drink liquid nitrogen, or to preserve our heads in cryogenic liquid after death, a couple of generations ago - and the i-word has been expropriated and applied in that limited context. Hence, it is no surprise that we continue to create more problems than we solve: Tinkering gets more credit than solving great problems (Peter Drucker, in his observation that the ATMs are the only innovation since the 70s worth mentioning, was almost right - as I would like to add the GPS) and disruption has lost meaning outside its narrow commercial sense.
All of this is counter-productive. The historical experience demands that we create safe and diverse spaces if we really want innovation; but instead, the current approach to innovation encourages institutional expropriation of the word, and hands over the initiative to the consultants who know how to spend Government monies, but not much else. The ideas such as Universal Basic Income are consigned to the socialist realm, and Prime Ministers go around clamping on immigrants and demanding the 'best and the brightest', turning the ideas of diversity and safety on its head, creating a global Elite (I use the term against protestations of journals such as The Economist, which claims that there is nothing called an 'Elite' as it is not a homogeneous category) that claim to have a monopoly of ideas. This is anti-innovation, because not just this is wrong, but this means that if you are not an elite and have something in your mind, it is not an idea. We already know, this is not how history turns out to be.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.