Speed and Innovation

Innovation and Prefrontal Cortex

I had an interesting conversation via email with Prof.B yesterday on improvisation and innovation yesterday. He claims that the issue is quite controversial amongst the innovation people.

His claim is that the total amount of innovation does not necessarily correlate with the speed. In other words, if improvisation is a technique that only provides 'speed' to coming up with new ideas, then, will it change the 'total innovation'?

My response to this would be, yes. The speed does matter here, especially in a world where information is so prevalent, and difficult to pick out what is good information (that is useful for creating innovation) and what is not. If information was rather limited, then the achievable level of innovation is quite fixed, so the chance of attaining 'total innovation' is quite high, as you can run through all the iteration of combination (association of ideas). Improvisation, I believe, will demonstrate its strength when the information is limitless/numerous/expanding, like in the world that we live in right now. Granted, if one lets the time to run infinitely, then you may be able to attain 'total innovation' but who has that time?
By using improvisation, you are using brain's supercomputer to to select the information that are viable in very short time. And if done in non-inhibitive way, it can create breakthroughs in very short time...just how IDEO conducts their brainstorming session.

 

Defeat and Innovation

Met up with Mr.Hibara from Ritsumeikan yesterday day with the entrepreneur group yesterday.

An interesting person, looks very intellectual with his designer's rectangular glasses, but he cracked some jokes and he laughed a lot. As another Japanese who has graduated from US graduate institution, it was very good for me to catch up with him to his view and learn about his footsteps.  He quit working at a commercial bank after 7years and went on to do a PhD in the US, and then taught in Canada for 4 years, and now he has taught at Ritsumeikan for 4 years and he will be moving to Waseda in September. Sounds like a good career path. 

What was interesting was the email communication I had with him afterwards. He repetitively mentioned during dinner that I will not have to 'hurry'. I took that to mean that I will not have to hurry as long as there is internal imminence attached with it. However, what he meant was that I should not be discouraged by any downs/failures that I will face in the future (for instance, now, as I cannot find my job!)...and don't get too bogged down and keep on fighting to go forward. Failure in the micro-level (or even macro-level) will help one succeed in future.  

How important is it to fail in order to succeed in innovation? 

Or is the perspective of 'failure' already a pessimistic sentiment that hinders great innovation?

Kazuhiko Tomita's "Zasetsuryoku", mentions the importance to fail...to be immune to short-term setbacks...I think that's probably what Mr.Hibara was getting at as well. 

Waking up in the morning and Innovation

Innovation  and waking up in the morning.

Is there a specific time in the morning that is much more suited for having an epiphany?
In the old times in China, they have said that the places where you would likely have ideas are on the horse (while traveling), on the bed (while sleeping?) and in the bathroom (where your mind is somewhere else?).
Physiologically speaking, I have heard before that in the morning is probably the best because your mind is much more clear and can make decisions quickly (I have heard that melatonin will start to get secreted in the body after 13-15 hours of waking up, which will cause drowsiness). Some of the very busy businessman and woman have been making the comments on how the 2-3 hours after you wake up is the so-called, Golden Hour, where the productivity maxes out.

...perhaps I should wake up earlier and don't waste my Golden Hour teaching Japanese!

There has also been some studies where after 10pm, people will start to become more emotional and less logical. Innovative ideas definitely contains logical parts, where the final product has to have some value in the society in one form or the other...but emotional component..? I am not sure, I have to give that more of a thought.  If there is no emotional component to it...hmm..I felt like innovation had some 'cool/cold' image as a word in itself, with blueish color in my qualia.  Is it a ruthless, clear-cut thing...this term "innovation"..."emotion" and "innovation" may be something to look into for the next writing.

 

Tennis, Decision and Innovation

Just as I had previously mentioned how artists are entrepreneurs in nature, as they have to produce value out of something that at a first glance, doesn't have any value, athletes have to do the same.

Basically, (just like artists), they have to create value out of their 'body' and 'equipment', in terms of their performance. 

Even within the realm of performance, it you zoom in on the game in itself, there is a lot that can be said about innovation and tennis. Let us take a look at a scenario. If you are in a match 4-4, serving and it is 30-30...a medium-length ball lands on the left corner of your court, and your opponent is standing on the baseline, having just hit favorite forehand shot, but he/she didn't put too much on the ball, as you sensed a little bit of choking on his/her side. At this moment, you are faced with multiple (numerous...in fact infinite) options. Backhand down-the-line to go for a winner, backhand cross-court to be safe, backhand-slice down-the-line to set up for the next point, drop-shot, short-cross-court, run-around forehand, hit a short-low ball to coax the opponent in....etc etc. Winning the point is one of the objective at that time, but at the same time, you'd want to get the momentum to be with you. The decision that you make at that will make different sort of out come. Just as what the innovators are faced with...decisions.  And it is in the decisions that they make that results in different products.

Decisions and innovation...

Innovators, when they decide, they decide to pursue the option that makes most sense for them....something that is aligned with their  preference, something that they value.  In an ideal world, decisions that innovators make should be 'actively' decided, rather than 'passively' deciding based on what the innovators believes that the 'society' is looking for (as 'active' decisions has a component of 'passion'...which relates to 'why' the innovator is doing what he/she is doing).  Passion-driven active decisions are strong, but dangerous, as you would have the tendency to lose sight of the societal need (an example of where creativity doesn't translate to innovation). 

Heavy Metal Concert 

4th Industrial Revolution 

Improvisation and Innovation(2)

Dinner with AJ.

This Innovation and Improvisation idea is really getting bigger and bigger in my head.
I really want to publish what I have in my head right now.
I think Japanese people  are probably good at improvising...and I think it's in their blood.
(I'm just trying to come up with different ideas...)

Take a look at Japanese cuisine, in traditional Japanese restaurants, it is possible for you to tell the chef and ask them to put together 'something' (Tekitou ni mitsukurou). But the concept is not widely available anywhere in the world. This 'something' is completely out of the chef's discretion. It is in the realm of
improvisation by the chefs. The chefs are not following things that's on the menu...they have to think what the customer would want (look for the need) from what they have available at the kitchen. ...That's an active cooking...rather than 'passive cooking'

I guess I do want to open up a restaurant after I retire...a restaurant without menu.
Just talk to the customers and immediately know their needs...that's an ultimate form of cooking...

Mental State and Innovation

Yakitori with CB.

Innovation and pessimism and optimism.
Innovation takes place at the edges. At the edges of two different things.
We have been thinking of this in terms of different disciplines, for instance, the innovation between physics and biology, has shed light into the new field of biomimicry.

Pessimists and Optimists (and "realists) have different perspectives on things that they see in the world. Both people are capable of seeing the world in different colored lenses. So in order for new innovation to come about in the world, would it be required to have these both types of people??

I guess thinking about that adds another dimension to innovation.
We may have to even think about the personality of the person who is innovating to really understand the details of innovation research..

 

Choose&Focus and Innovation

Listened to Prof. U.S on the companies that are doing well in the 2000s in Japan.
The successful companies in Japan are relatively unknown, but they have gone through radical change over the years, and she found commonalities between the companies: the 7Ps.

All the companies had gone through some sort of Choose & Focus.

Does choosing and focusing inhibit innovation?
It appears to me that choosing and focusing is useful AFTER the innovation's strategy has been laid out for a particular idea/technology. Until then, choosing and focusing will prevent the formation of breadth of different ideas. Diversity gives the chance for information to create something meaningful, but at the same time, it increases the permutations of the combinations of the ideas, so it will also prevent new innovation to form, as you need to select the one that works well. That could be thought as the dilemma of innovation(I just made up), whether to want so many ideas to choose from or to be limited to several different areas of field.

Then...is there a golden mean??
No ideas will not create innovation. And, it doesn't cost anything.
An infinite number of ideas will have infinite number of combinations, where the "cost" of finding the ultimate innovation via combination would also be infinite.
What would an optimum number of ideas be??