This is a bit of a “if a tree falls in the woods…” question, but I think it’s interesting nonetheless.
Innovation is defined by creation, but I wonder if it’s possible to be innovative by standing still.
If everyone else is doing something new, and you are sticking with what you’ve got, are you being innovative? Can you be innovative by not changing a thing?
For example, Kottke has a piece on the return of the housecall. The doctor even says “I’m a new kind of physician.” Is that innovative? Housecalls used to be the norm, and now here’s a doctor that’s doing it again. Sounds innovative to me in today’s context, but is it actually innovative? Or is it just a return to something that works?
Now, this doctor is bringing some innovation in the form of video and instant messaging, but if a doctor has been doing housecalls for 30 years, and everyone else was requiring an office visit, and then housecalls are back in vogue, is that 30-year-housecall doctor innovative?
I know this doctor example isn’t a perfect example, but hopefully it’s a good baseline for discussion.
So what do you think?
darrel
on 26 Sep 07If we’re debating the term, then I’d say, no, these aren’t innovative as the very definition of innovative revolves around the concept of ‘new’.
Maybe we need a new word: Retrovative?
There’s plenty of examples of this type of thing to continue the list you started: – organic agriculture – letterpress printing studios – most everything out of hollywood these days
Shawn
on 26 Sep 07Me reading tea leaves thinks this is 37signals way of keeping their customers happy since there doesn’t appear to be any plans for future applications.
Nothing in the pipleline at 37signals isn’t a bad thing, as long as they continue to improve their existing services.
Steve Goodman
on 26 Sep 07I agree with darrel that this is a semantics issue. Does ‘new’ mean ‘new within the last 30 years’ or ‘new since the history of time’? It depends on who you ask. As with most words, there’s a whole network of personal context hidden behind the word itself.
It’s certainly possible to be successful, effective and different by standing still; we just have to be careful not conflate those concepts with being innovative. Retrovative on the other hand…
Stuart Dallas
on 26 Sep 07I think innovation is directly related to change. In the case of the doctor it’s returning to an old idea, but it’s diffrent to current practice.
Standing still is not always a bad idea, but I wouldn’t consider it innovative because it’s not being different.
Anonymous Coward
on 26 Sep 07Standing still is not always a bad idea, but I wouldn’t consider it innovative because it’s not being different.
It is being different if everyone else is moving. If you’re standing still, and everyone else is going in a different direction, you are definitely different.
So if the norm is movement, could stillness be innovative?
Robert Fischer
on 26 Sep 07You can’t really be innovative by standing still. You can be innovative by reintroducing or reimplementing something which has been abandoned. In this way, the contemporary house call would be an innovation in the medical field, and the contemporary resurgence of contemplative spirituality is an innovation in Christianity.
I’ve been shilling for an innovative new idea: leveraging the compiler to reduce the work of the developer by identifying bugs quickly, and doing this in a way that still allows for succinct code to be written. This is called static type inference, and it’s part of the reason I heart Ocaml.
One thing that I got from the post - and maybe it’s just the way I read it - is that there seems to be a conflation between innovation and revolution. You can be innovative drastically reworking the dominant paradigm like Rails did. Rails was a sorely-needed revolution in web app development. Now it has become the predominant approach to web app development. This, however, doesn’t mean that there’s no room left for innovation. I think there’s a lot of “internal space” in the convention/generation paradigm of Rails left to be explored and reworked. How can things be made yet easier to do? How can meta-programming and DSLs be most effectively leveraged? Is there something that Rails could learn from functional language approaches which it hasn’t picked up yet? What other kinds of technologies/approaches are out there which could be used?
The Rails team is certainly digging at a lot of these approaches with things like REST and ActiveResources. They’re definitely innovative, even if they’re not revolutionary.
Daryl
on 26 Sep 07I think the doctor is innovative in the way he’s doing business because it’s not just about the housecalls. He also mentions how he takes appointments over SMS and so forth. He is bringing back an old feature with a new trend. Just like rocking retro fashion, it’s innovative to reuse old fashion in new ways.
RS
on 26 Sep 07The doctor is not a lucky traditionalist, holding on to his old ways and suddenly getting lucky with a changing fashion.
He’s looking at the health landscape with fresh eyes. He’s not stuck in the deadwood of “this is how it’s done.” This doctor looks at a problem everyone else thinks is “solved” and says “here’s a different way”. And he’s doing it consciously. That’s innovation.
The innovator is the one who sees a problem on its own terms, not the terms of the status quo or the politically correct. This fresh perspective on so-called “solved” problems is key.
Morgan
on 26 Sep 07Greetings, Daryl’s point is very apt. Fashion goes through waves, and the first designer who realizes that the time and circumstances are appropriate for reintroducing an old style with a new twist is generally seen as innovative.
So the core point is that if you just stand still, you don’t innovate, BUT…if you return to a past behavior or concept, with fresh eyes and a fresh approach, you do.
For the doctor, while the idea of housecalls regaining fashion is definitely welcome, I don’t so much think their housecalls are innovative. When they marry it (an old, good idea) with the modern conveniences to produce a more responsive doctor, THAT results in innovation, imo.
The doctor in the story didn’t stand still; they adapted new technology and capabilities to an old, known good model.
hallohallohola
on 26 Sep 07Speaking of cuisine, stickin to traditions is the best way to be innovative.
Being traditional it’s really hard, is a daily trial, that’s what difficult. Running to stand still, that’s hard.
You can’t be innovative if you can’t be traditional. In the digital age too.
Anonymous Coward
on 26 Sep 07sometimes cutting back the tree is a must so it can grow new again. standing still is not innovative. but it is a part of the natural process from time to time.
Michael Neale
on 26 Sep 07Yes, I think its innovative of the doctor. I guess “staying the course” can be innovative in the face of pressure to do otherwise – as long as you are doing it because you know it is right, rather then just laziness.
In any case, in a lot of cases staying the course is the right thing do to no matter what you call it. Personally, I would call it innovative (and it would look that way to most people).
random8r
on 26 Sep 07In the beginning phases of Tai Chi, if one studies with a good teacher, one begins a practice which also has its own following called Zhan Zhong (excuse my probably bad transliteration), which involves “standing like a tree”.
One can learn many things by doing this: not the least of which is forebearance, and most importantly in my view, gaining the strength to move appropriately.
Martial arts are all about timing and distancing; in fact, skill in just about EVERYTHING is about tming and distancing. Martial arts are just a great way to express relationship “equations”.
Cooking, for example, is about taking some foods, and preparing them and then combining them in certain ways, at certain times and in certain “distances” from each other (ie proportions).
And, of course, business, is all about timing and distancing. When to release a product, for how much, where and what, is probably all there is TO business, some would wager.
Standing still is the origin from which all movement comes, and so, Tai Chi begins with standing still – the beginning posture, Chi Shih, is when one simply is at origin point.
The point, is, however, is that standing still is the MOTHER of innovation, but it’s not innovation. There is nothing new in standing still, it is with every one of us at every moment in our lives – because it gave birth to all movement. But it may be overlooked, so from that point of view, “the basics” may need re-emphasis: thus, one finds that without standing still, one can simply not have what is required to innovate in a certain way.
Put it another way: Is good preparation inventive cooking? ;-) Is relaxation and stretching creative gynmastics?
Our culture is concerned with the surface texture of things – the contact point. In martial arts, this is the hand, not the foot. But the foot provides the energy for the hand!! To disregard that is to disregard the entire equation. It is more important in a lot of ways than the form that the hand comes up in, but it is less “interesting” to people: it sustains the hand.
So, perhaps the question is an odd question.
Real stillness is not separate from real activity. They are one and the same thing. To move “cleanly”, one must be still on the inside: to have a still center around which the movement takes place. To stand still “cleanly”, one must pay attentiont to the form, and not simply start snoring – ie be active inside.
But to stand still is not the action of movement, and innovation is an expression, therefore it’s an apparently opposite to standing still. Given a context of much hurried, flourished movement, though, standing still is movement in its own right, because it may take more energy to do than to not move.
To stand still is not “yours”, though, and therefore cannot be called innovative! It may be revolutionary, amazing, interesting, and awesome to stand still, given the context, but it can never be the property of the person or group standing still. How can the action of inaction therefore be innovative?
Good to ponder.
random8r
Avi
on 26 Sep 07I like to take the Ruby approach to these kinds of questions. Nothing is still something. Like in King Lear, when asked to express her love, Cordelia answers with nothing. As the story goes, that was the greatest expression of her love. So what I’m saying is that sometimes standing still can very well be moving forward.
Dutch Rapley
on 26 Sep 07The “being innovative” argument set aside, a guy like Jay Parkinson has really simplified his business model. By doing so, he can add value to his service. Think about it – You interface with him, and him only. You don’t have to deal with schedulers, administrative assistants, nurses, and icky waiting rooms. The doctor doesn’t have to deal with office space and equipment overhead, payrolls, office supplies, or employees with bad attitudes. Things have just become simpler. In doing so, he also has just improved his quality of service.
Tony Wright
on 27 Sep 07The doctor isn’t innovating by standing still. He’s innovating by taking inspiration from past practices—but he IS changing.
Sooooo… Standing still—no. That’s not innovative.
Taking a fresh twist on an abandoned idea/practice can be and often is innovative…
José Bonnet
on 27 Sep 07Though ‘innovation’ sounds like ‘new’, it also is a synonimous of ‘odd’ or ‘remarkable’. In that sense, yes, standing-still might be innovative if all the others are moving around.
jb
Walt Kania
on 27 Sep 07I’m not sure that ‘innovating’ is the holy grail, really.
Just doing something ‘new’ doesn’t buy you beans. Nor does being ‘different’. What counts is doing something that a lot of people like — which can be ‘new’, ‘retro’, ‘contrarian’, ‘standing still’, being low-feature, or high-feature.
The physician who offers house calls - like 37 Signals is doing with your web apps - is offering something that a lot of people like. That’s harder to do than merely ‘innovating.’ And that’s what rings the bell.
But I just make this stuff up.
Blake
on 27 Sep 07Absolutely. Innovation is also the step taken away from the masses. Many ideas from the past have been overshadowed by new norms, when that original idea wasn’t broken at all. Just because it’s an “old” idea doesn’t make it any less vital. Time shouldn’t effect an idea, and if an idea is considered innovative, then I would think staying true to a certain way of doing things can be seen in the same light. Especially when people tend to blind themselves from what’s the best idea out there.
The doctor for example. In an age when all we do is fight insurance company expenses, and barely getting a glance from doctors, this is exactly what we need.
Rodrigo
on 27 Sep 07no, it’s not innovative.
its not like a movie can be innovative in the 60’s, then just be a movie in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and then again be innovative now (and yes, the movies stand still)
going back to what it use to work (and still works) it’s not innovation by itself, you have to at least add some twists.
to me this sound like the guys that say “Bethoveen is jazz, man …”, sure, there may be some similitudes, in the technique and the spirit of the music, and it may be nice to see what these similarities are, but ultimately there are differences, and you should not forget about those.
Andres
on 27 Sep 07It isn’t innovative, not according to the dictionary definition of it (“introduction of new things or methods”). Of course, understanding “new” as something that’s never been done before, as opposed to re-introduction.
You could say that it’s non-conformist, not accepting the mainstream direction that medicine is practiced today. Or you could say it’s traditionalist or even conservative (in a non-political way), never accepting change.
as you say, you could say that the doctor’s use of IM/video messaging, etc. is an innovative way of practicing housecalls.
But back to your more general question, I don’t think you can be innovative by standing still. But it can be refreshing to see people do things the old way. It’s not new; fashion, music and other arts and trades are often cyclical. Every time with a new twist and for generations that haven’t experienced them before, they may seem innovative, but they aren’t technically innovative.
Don Schenck
on 27 Sep 07A HUGE “Yes!” to this.
Bruno
on 27 Sep 07I agree with Walt. Is being innovative the means or the goal?
I believe innovation exists to supply needs in a more efficient way—or to simply to address new necessities that may come up as time goes by. Innovation per se should not be considered a goal: only what it can help accomplish.
The doctor may not be necessarily innovative, but surely he is addressing that problem in a proven way.
Ivan Vega
on 28 Sep 07Funny, just now I was reading the Tao Te Ching, and it says that gravity is the root of lightness, and stillness the foundation of movement… whatever that means :-)
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Sep 07Sitting still, is in itself innovation.
It is a natural transformation. Not contrived movment or otherwise.
Of course this is from a guy that moves as wind does.
So absolutely. I would say that being still, is the most profound innovation we can take part in.
Ask a Zen monk. He will tell you.
Jennifer Davis
on 29 Sep 07It requires a lot of discipline to do nothing or to not change, especially if you are in the technology business where there is an assumption that if you are not being dynamic or “innovating” that you are falling behind.
Successful companies are always considered innovative in hindsight. And insiders at these companies will tell you that most days there were not marked by big “aha” moments, but the discipline of execution…which isn’t nearly as sexy, but brings the results!
This discussion is closed.