The Innovator’s Mindset – Lessons to learn from a revolutionary invention

Tribute to a ground-breaking innovation

January 2019: These days, barely noticed, the 250th anniversary of an innovation is taking place which is comparable in its significance to the invention of the wheel, the letterpress or the computer: On 5 January 1769 James Watt received a patent for a "Method of Lessening the Consumption of Steam & Fuel in Fire Engines". The invention of the steam engine marked the birth of modernity and the Industrial Revolution. The "second" or "fourth industrial revolution", as the digital revolution is called in the Anglo-Saxon or German-speaking countries, stands on the shoulders of this innovation, which has changed the face of the world as profoundly as digitalization is beginning to do today. This anniversary is an excellent opportunity to deepen the reflections from the last blog on “The Paradigm Shift in Innovation Management”. What can one learn from the invention of the steam engine for the innovator's mindset? I want to highlight two insights.

1. Context and culture matter

There are many myths about the origin of great innovations. They often follow the pattern that the inventor had a flash of genius that led practically out of nowhere to a completely new idea: Newton, to whom an apple falls on his head and discovers the law of gravity, Kekulé, who deciphers a chemical problem after dreaming of six dancing children, etc. Of course, there are these extraordinary moments when it just "clicks" and a new thought enters the world. But innovations rarely follow this pattern. Above all, innovations practically never emerge out of nowhere. On the contrary, it is usually the case that a topic is in the air for a long time, is worked on by many and progresses incrementally until suddenly an idea emerges that lifts it to a new level. This was also the case with the invention of the steam engine, which was not invented by Watt. James Watt and the invention of the steam engine became synonymous as the Big Bang of a new era. But in January 1769 the steam enigne was already an old story. You might wonder how old! Watt's innovation merely improved the steam engine, but in a way that catapulted its efficiency into completely new dimensions and made completely new applications possible.

If James Watt didn't invent the steam engine, who and especially when was it invented? When Watt applied for his patent, steam engines had been in use for over 50 years, but the first recorded application of steam engines dates back much further: it dates back to Hellenistic times around 200 BC! Hellenistic engineers knew and mastered the principle of the steam engine. They experimented with it and, among other things, built toys for children that moved by themselves. At some point the interest was lost and the invention disappeared until it was made again at the beginning of the 18th century. This time it fell on more fertile ground and transformed the world.

Why does an innovation disappear one time but not the next? That depends largely on the context and culture that either lend wings to a new idea or nip it in the bud. The culture of modernity is fundamentally oriented towards "dynamics", "progress" and "change". This means that what is new is perceived per se as better and thus desirable. The culture of antiquity, which is oriented towards "statics" and "persistence", is quite different. What is worth striving for here is that which is at rest, which no longer is in need for change. This becomes very clear in the thinking of the philosopher Epicurus, who decisively shaped the spiritual world of Hellenism. The unreachable but theorically perfect world for Epicurus is one in which all atoms have come to rest completely and in which, consequently, there is no movement and no change. What means perfection for antiquity is considered a graveyard to modernity. Considering this, it is not at all surprising that one and the same invention slowly dries out in one context, while it remains, grows and blossoms in the other context.

If we now move from this historical macro level down to the business level, we find exactly the same processes in place. There are corporate cultures that are geared to "statics" and those that are geared to "dynamics". In the latter context, innovations grow, in the former they die. A striking example of this is Kodak. Kodak has dominated the world market for analog photography and has gone bankrupt in the age of digital photography. Kodak is therefore a frequently cited example of overslept digitalization. But what is less well known is that it was Kodak that invented the digital camera! It is not that Kodak did not understand digitisation, but rather that it failed to create an environment in which digital ideas are equipped with wings. A major reason for the inherent "static" culture of established corporations is that big innovations always threaten their core business. It is the urge to defend the core business that cuts the wings of the idea. Kodak was already holding the digital camera in its hands, invented by its own engineers, and had all the means to extend its market leadership from analogue photography to digital photography. The corporate culture focused on "statics" and preservation prevailed, and Kodak went bankrupt. The consequence to be drawn from this, of course, is not to do the opposite and carelessly sacrifice the core business for each new idea, but to create corporate culture and structures that offer space for both, for "statics" and for "dynamics", and to balance these appropriately.

2. The innovation iceberg

We admire inventors like James Watt for their sparkling ideas and innovative power - and misjudge what it means to create an innovation. The good idea, however ingenious it may be, is only the tip of the iceberg. It is what remains visible and in memory of an innovation, but like an iceberg, the vast majority lies invisibly under water. The invisible part is the tedious, bone-dry work of implementation. From 5 January 1769, it took seven years for the idea to become a marketable model. Seven years in which Watt had to find investors, built prototypes, make numerous other enabling innovations and had to deal with annoying bureaucracy. And seven years in which the invention was always on the brink of collapse.

On this battlefield, not on that of stimulating and entertaining creative workshops, success or failure is decided. Outstanding inventors and company founders are equipped with a quasi-messianic belief in their idea, the ability to transfer this enthusiasm to others, and the perseverance and skill to bring an idea from the lofty heights of imagination into the hands of paying customers. The fact that this is just as true today as it was in 1769 can be seen from innovative start-ups. It is well-known that about 92% of all start-ups fail. What is less well-known, however, is the reason why start-ups fail or not. Contrary to general intuition, it is not the product idea that makes the difference. According to a wide-ranging study, the uniqueness of the product idea ranks last among the top three success factors. First is timing (and boy did the hellenistic inventors of the steam engine had bad timing), second is the execution capability of the team and third is the idea. In other words, the probability of founding a successful start-up is higher if the idea is mediocre, but the team is strong in execution. Experienced start-up investors therefore analyse the start-up team at least as intensively as the product or the market situation before making a decision. Corporations on the other hand rarely exercise the same care when staffing their innovation initiatives.

If you are wondering how you can equip your company with more dynamism and innovation power, you are well-advised to deal intensively with three things: Context, culture and people make the difference!

Ziad Mahayni is partner at 3con Management Consultants, shareholder of the start-up SlidePresenter, PhD philosopher, Graduate Engineer of Chemistry, author and speaker.

In his blog he illuminates the digital transformation from the perspective of the philosopher, management consultant and affected person.

Like, comment, share, follow at https://www.dhirubhai.net/in/ziad-mahayni-37808261/