Is it possible to learn to innovate? Can innovation be taught at school?
After reading literature by some of the world’s leading experts on innovation — Clayton Christensen, Henry Chesbrough, John Kao, James Andrew and Harold Sirkin — I was fascinated but frustrated. Innovation is the production of new knowledge that generates value. It gives rise to novel products, services and processes, new management methods and original designs and inventions that generate greater profits for firms, regions and countries.
Most experts agree that there are no ready-made formulas or recipes for how to innovate. But is it possible to create the appropriate conditions — to filter ideas and execute plans, and thus to facilitate creativity — under which innovation may flourish?
Managers can perhaps be taught how to nurture innovation by creating an environment that stimulates and encourages individual freedom, creativity and constructive criticism. Innovation is more likely where it is possible to defy restrictions and authority; where individuals and groups are allowed to ignore conventions; where a mixing of ideas, people and cultures is permitted and stimulated; and where management techniques enable firms and industries to acknowledge, identify and learn from errors as quickly as possible.
Above all, innovation will blossom wherever it is recognized that innovation must be open to the physical world and to the world of ideas, and that, because no firm, no process and no invention has a guaranteed future, everyone should be prepared for uncertainty. Innovation may increase even more when firms and managers realize that even the most successful firms — those that “have done everything right” — may languish and disappear. In brief, innovation will only truly take off with the understanding that the world is rapidly changing, extremely dynamic and volatile, and that the future is unpredictable.
These are great ideas, but as I went through these texts I found them to be rather familiar — I had the feeling that I had already studied them. I realized that these ideas had already been developed by the theory of knowledge and the philosophy of science. Innovation is simply a subset of scientific knowledge.
According to the school of rational criticism, when existing theories can neither explain nor solve problems, the formulation of new hypotheses — and thus new scientific knowledge — is, like innovation, more likely to flourish when constructive criticism is openly allowed and encouraged. Here, too, the formulation of new ideas and hypotheses quite often takes place far from the authority of experts, because experts, like business managers, often become prisoners of their specializations and backgrounds.
Scientific knowledge is more likely to emerge in environments where it is accepted that there are no prescribed or logical methods for formulating hypotheses; that they may be the result of sudden inspiration; or that they may come from dreams, from other disciplines, or from people that belong to different professions or have different backgrounds.
Once a plausible hypothesis is formulated, it must be tested against all existing theories and against all available experience and information. It has to be subject to open criticism from all directions and only if it survives these tests and criticisms may it be adopted as tentative and conjectural new knowledge. Science and knowledge are made up not of winners, but of survivors of continuous and systematic efforts to refute. Theories are never certain and must always be prepared for an uncertain future. Or, as philosopher Karl Popper put it, truth is never definitive and error is always probable.
No book on innovation that I have read makes the connection between innovation and the theory of knowledge and philosophy of science. This is unfortunate, because the theories of innovation may be subject to all the questions, conjectures and answers that these disciplines have developed with respect to scientific knowledge. Should business administration students and future business managers immerse themselves in the philosophy of science, they would not only become more knowledgeable and have greater respect for science; they might also become more rigorous and more competent, have greater respect for other disciplines and be more humble.
At the same time, philosophy professors and students might also profit from the questions that challenge firms and industries. They might broaden their scope and find that they, too, can contribute to the productivity of firms, industries and the economy in general. But it is past time that some basic principles in the theory of knowledge and of philosophy of science be introduced into schools of business administration.
Santiago Montenegro, a visiting fellow at the Center of Hemispheric Policy, University of Miami, was director of Colombia’s National Planning Department and dean of the School of Economics at Los Andes University.COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry