How to Encourage Small Innovations: “
The announcement of Apple’s iPad is turning many people’s thoughts to the innovations behind big ideas. Innovations such as these play a critical role in a company’s future, but companies often hinder themselves by focusing on finding the next big thing, when in reality, the next small thing might be more beneficial.
The more that employees are encouraged to think creatively and apply that creativity, the more flexible in practice and nimble in responsiveness a company becomes. When you take pressure off people to come up with a ‘big’ idea, you encourage the creativity that can bring about incremental innovations. As a result, a new service or product offering may emerge, but it’s more likely that you will optimize your operations for cost, quality, efficiency, and speed.
At its core, innovation is applied creativity. And, it is my belief since I have seen it for years is that most employees can be encouraged to be creative, if you want them to be.
How can you encourage small innovations?
Think small. The beauty of small innovations is that they focus on immediate concerns, not on finding game-changing products. Encourage your people to find a solution to a problem, or a better way of doing things.
Try posing questions: How can accounting streamline billing? How can customer service resolve issues on the phone without supervisor intervention? How can product engineers find more time to spend with customers? Using such questions will get people generating ideas. Not every idea will be brilliant, but that’s the point. You want to collect ideas, refine them, and select the best for implementation.
Implement locally. Since most small innovations are limited to a department or a function, put them into action as soon as possible. If the idea does not work as expected, dont abandon it immediately — see if you can tweak it. Implementation itself can be creative and sometimes it takes several tries to make innovative ideas work as expected, or beyond expectations.
Promote widely. You need to recognize those who think of and support the innovations. Many organizations provide incentives for such efforts, from gift coupons all the way up to substantive bonuses for innovations that positively affect the entire company. The important thing is to recognize the right people, and to do it in a timely fashion.
Encouraging small innovations is only part of the management equation. Execution of the innovations is critical. No amount of applied creativity can make up for slipped deadlines, blown budgets, dissatisfied customers, or unbalanced profit and loss statements. You need to focus on the details to get things done.
You may also discover another benefit from your small innovations: tapping into the collective brainpower of your employees. They are your collaborators, and by treating them as such you make it known that you welcome their ideas and will reward them.
“
(Via HarvardBusiness.org.)
Announcing the posts that will be published in The Open Laboratory 2009! [A Blog Around The Clock]
Announcing the posts that will be published in The Open Laboratory 2009! [A Blog Around The Clock]: “
The time has come….the moment many of you have been waiting for, for months!
The most amazing 2009 guest editor Scicurious and I are ready to announce the 50 posts that have made it through a grueling judging process to emerge as winners to be included in the Open Laboratory 2009, the anthology of the best writing on science blogs of the past year.
Out of 760 posts, all of amazing quality (we could have collected something like ten anthologies, all good), the survivors of all the rounds, the posts that will actually get printed on physical, dead-tree paper, are:
Breastatistics, by Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde.
Beyond Energy, by Tom Paine’s Ghost.
Making the Archeological Record, by Aarvarchaeology.
I want to be Carl Sagan but Can’t by NeuroDojo.
The Weird History of Vaccine Adjuvants by Neuron Culture.
Why you didn’t really want the job, the Waiting for Godot Edition at The Oyster’s Garter.
Cosmopithicus at The Beagle Project.
Blood and brains – can vampires survive a zombie apocalypse? by Southern Fried Science.
Pressure to Preserve by the Culture of Chemistry.
Bittersweet, from Beyond the Short Coat.
How research saved the large blue butterfly, from Not Exactly Rocket Science.
How science reporting works, from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Good Head (Don’t worry, it’s about beer!) from Bayblab.
Brain and behavior of dinosaurs, from Neurophilosophy.
The Origin of Bigfrom the Loom.
Stripped, part II, the Aquiline Nose, by Anna’s Bones.
Male chauvinist chimps or the meat market of public opinion? from The Primate Diaries.
Seagulls at Sunset, from Partiallyclipse.
Astronomical art: representing planet earth, from 10 Days of science.
Addiction and the Opponent-Process theory, at Neurotopia.
Academia: slowing down the search for cures? at Respectful Insolence.
It’s official: we really have saved the ozone layer at Highly Allocthonous.
The Cuttlefish Genome project, by the Digital Cuttlefish.
You aren’t what your mother eats, from Plus magazine.
Does faking amnesia permanently distort your memory? from Cognitive Daily.
Why swine flu is resistance to adamantane drugs by the Scientific Activist.
Betting on the poor boy: whorf strikes back by the Language Log.
A sorry saga, the crumbling cookie from the Mr. Science Show.
The rightful place of the science and the African-American community from the Young Black Professional Guide.
Friday (Isaac) Newton blogging: Monday/Newton+Darwin Edition from the Inverse Square Blog.
The glamour of marine biology from Evolutionary Novelties.
Impediments to dialogue about animal research, parts 2, 3, and 4 from Adventures in Ethics and Science.
What exactly am I ambivalent about, parts 1 and 2 from Ambivalent Academic.
Eye-opening access by Reciprocal Space.
Aspartame and Audrey by Bench Twentyone.
The incredible shrinking genome, at Byte Size Biology.
Genital mimicry, social erections, and spotted hyenas, from Wild Muse.
A squishy topic, by Expression Patterns.
Start seeing micro-inequities by Female Science Professor.
Darwin’s degenerates – evolution’s finest, by Observations of a Nerd.
The first great mammoth, by archy.
In which I ramp up, at Mind the Gap.
Sleep paralysis, from Wired.
Because as we all know, the green party runs the world, by no moods, ads, or cutesy fucking icons.
Deep sea corals and methane seeps, by Deep Sea News.
Maiacetus, the good mother whale, by Laelaps.
More of the science of the influenza ‘cytokine storm’ by Effect Measure.
Congratulations to all the winners, and to everyone whose posts were submitted over the past year.
We would especially like to thank our distinguished panel of judges – people who had to, in short order, read and evaulate many, many posts and provide us with useful comments we needed in making the final decision. The judges are:
Joshua Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas and the National Center for Science Education.
Kevin Zelnio of Deep Sea News.
Greg Laden of Greg Laden’s Blog.
Stephanie Zvan of Almost Diamonds.
Comrade Physioprof
Dr. Isis
The Digital Cuttlefish
T. DeLene Beeland of Wild Muse.
Christie Wilcox of Observations of a Nerd.
Suzanne Franks of Thus Spake Zuska.
DrugMonkey
Anne Jefferson and Chris Rowan of Highly Allocthonous.
Brian Switek of Laelaps.
Jean-Claude Bradley of Useful Chemistry.
Peter A. Lipson, MD of White Coat Underground.
Michael D Barton of the Dispersal of Darwin.
Anna Kushnir of Lab Life.
Moheb Costandi of Neurophilosophy.
Revere of Effect Measure.
Liz Borkowski of the Pump Handle.
Carl Feagans of A Hot Cup of Joe
Carel P. Brest van Kempen of Rigor Vitae.
Laurent of Seeds Aside.
GrrlScientist
Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science
Janet Stemwedel of Adventures in Ethics and Science.
Greg Gbur of Skulls in the Stars
Pamela Gay of Starstryder
Ethan Siegal of Starts with a Bang
Female Science Professor
Ambivalent Academic
Art Kilner of AK’s Rambling Thoughts.
Afarensis
It will take another couple of weeks for all the posts to get edited and ‘typeset’ and for the book to be ready for sale. Watch this blog and Neurotopia for the announcement.
And in the meantime, while waiting, you can go back and re-read (of course you have them already! Don’t you?!) the 2006, 2007 and 2008 editions.
Read the comments on this post…
Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Starts With a Bang
“
(Via ScienceBlogs Select.)
By Andrew Liszewski
The idea of a microwave oven or a washing machine running Android might seem like a bit much, but the company behind these two concepts, Touch Revolution, actually has a pretty clever product. Their Android-powered NIM1000 Touch Module can be integrated by an OEM into a wide range of products (hence the proof of concept microwave and washing machine on display) adding gesture-based touch controls to almost any device.
It saves a company from having to research and develop their own touch-screen hardware and software, and because it does run Android, the possibilities of what that touch screen can do are almost endless. The brief demo I saw had them loading Pandora on the microwave and playing a bit of Jason Mraz through a pair of built-in speakers.
[ Touch Revolution ]
“
(Via OhGizmo!.)
Maybe You're the Reason Your Job Is Boring: “
If you are finding your job a little boring, you aren’t alone. There are many who feel trapped in their current jobs since the economy has removed a few of the seats in the corporate game of musical chairs. But I challenge you to see that it’s actually you, not the job, that’s boring. First, see if you recognize any of these hard truths:
- You’re on autopilot.
- Your energy level is less than impressive.
- You’ve become a conformist.
When bored, our brains shift into autopilot. This isn’t a good thing for you or your company. Unfortunately, shifting into autopilot is what our brains do best. Our past experiences create the neural pathways upon which our survival depends. The brain interprets current reality and responds to similar situations using behaviors that have served us well in the past. These shortcuts help us save time, but can also sap our interest.
When we are bored, our energy level dissipates and we lose the focus and purpose so necessary to excel at the job at hand. Our brains no longer work for us and actually start working against us.
It’s not unusual for leaders to start sleeping on the job once they hit year three or four. At this point, they have molded the organization in their own image. They know their people, processes, and technology aren’t perfect, but have adjusted to their imperfections and lose sight of the opportunities for improvement. Every day brings the same set of problems and the same responses. From a performance perspective, the sharp ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ so obvious on Day 1 become indistinguishable shades of gray. ‘I can’t believe what’s going on here!’ slowly but surely becomes ‘I can’t believe how tired I am!’
So what’s the solution?
Wake yourself up by renewing your leadership agenda. Re-engage by mentally firing yourself and spending the next few weeks acting as if you just joined the company. This entails assessing the current situation anew with the help of key stakeholders. Make it a disciplined process.
This isn’t as easy as it sounds. Although you are bored, you are also extremely busy. Your only choice is to extract yourself from day-to-day operations while you redefine your organization’s future. It’s time to delegate or defer and make sure that the ‘First 90 Days’ activities take priority in your calendar. Activities such as clarifying strengths and opportunities, confirming the mandate for change, and determining how to better allocate existing resources.
This approach is uncomfortable and definitely not boring. Take heart that your organization can operate just fine (for a while) without you and its far better to fire yourself mentally today rather than wait for your organization to do so — for real.
“
(Via HarvardBusiness.org.)
Clues Sought to Unknown Human-Microbe Life Colonies: ”
Few of us like to dwell on the fact our human cells are vastly
outnumbered (10X) by microbes in our bodies’ cellular cities. If we
went by cellular per capita, rather than size of cell, we’d be more
microbe than man.
In fact, various microbes have colonized nearly every conceivable
part of our bodies, from the inside out. Some make us sick, but most
allow us to live. In fact, without our little micro-friends, we
couldn’t survive. Microbes known as ‘probiotics’ break down
indigestible food, keep us ‘regular’, make vitamins, and aid the immune
system by keeping out harmful bacteria, among other functions.
The
weird part is that most of our ‘bug’ colonies are as of yet
unidentified. (Yes, for all of our scientific advancement- we still
don’t know what’s inside our insides). So far, scientists haven’t had
much luck studying them, since only 1% of our body’s microbes can be
grown outside of their delicately balanced ‘ecosystems’. Frankly,
scientists don’t know much at all about the billions of ‘bugs’ who
spend their entire life cycle within the boundaries of our bodies. But
now experts say it’s time to figure out exactly what these life-forms
are.
‘This is completely unexplored territory that is likely to have a
large impact on our understanding of human health and disease,’ says
George Weinstock, co-director of the Human Sequencing Center at the
Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston. ‘We hadn’t been able to
approach it because of the scale of the problem. But now we are finally
able to open that door.’
Weinstock points out that any project involving the microbes would
have to be even bigger than the Human Genome project. ‘Even though a
microbial genome is one-thousandth the size of the human genome, the
total number of microbial genes in [the human] body is much greater
than human genes because you have so many different species.’
Since we now know the genomes that make up the human body, science
would like to figure out what’s ‘inside’ our insides. This research
will likely give fruitful rewards, since various microbes are linked to
all kinds of health bonuses as well as serious health risks. There are
other benefits to consider as well.
‘At the end of the day, we’ll end up with another perspective on the
evolution of our species, our human-microbial selves,’ says Jeffrey
Gordon, a microbiologist at the Washington University School of
Medicine, in St. Louis.
Gordon’s research has shown just what an impact understanding our
micro-tenants can make. Gordon and his colleagues discovered that obese
people have a very different microbial community than lean people.
Interestingly, these researchers discovered that when obese people lost
weight, their micro-colonies began to morph into colonies more similar
to that of a thin person.
Once we know how our microbes work, we can manipulate them to
improve health and potentially prevent a host of diseases and
disorders. The field of analyzing genomes of microbial communities,
known as metagenomics, is relatively new. There is a lot of work to be
done. Scientists are hoping to receive funding approval later this
month to facilitate the research of these little critters, which could
yield big results.
Posted by Rebecca Sato
“
The start-up chronicles: Reflecting on reflecting: “
(Editor’s Note: The Start-up Chronicles is a weekly feature giving an inside view of the trials of a bootstrapped start-up – The Cost Savings Guy. CEO and founder Bruce Judson is also the author of ‘Go It Alone!: The Secret to Building A Successful Business on Your Own’ and a senior faculty fellow at the Yale School of Management.)
The end of the year is traditionally a time for reflecting on goals for the coming twelve months, as well as past mistakes you don’t plan to repeat. This year I have found myself focused on the idea of reflection itself.
For a solo entrepreneur, taking the time to reflect on how your business is evolving is particularly critical. The daily effort to build the business can be all consuming. The desire to jump at each new idea can be overwhelming. And, it’s easy to feel productive by doing things that can take enormous amounts of time, even if they ultimately add little to your overall sales effort. The real question is whether this is time well spent or something that simply creates the illusion of productivity.
My belief in the need for reflection is sufficiently strong that I try to set aside one to two hours every day for some form of longer-term thinking and activity. These hours may involve participating in constant experiments or may involve a rigorous assessment of what I have learned in the previous few days or weeks (and what I am trying to accomplish now).
A regular consideration is whether I am spending my time in the most effective manner possible. It’s so easy to get off track that I’ve set rules for my daily behavior. For example, if a specific effort is taking me longer than a half-hour, I stop and reflect on the project. Am I overly concerned with perfecting something that is unnecessary? How much longer will this initiative take? Was I realistic in my original thinking about the time and energy involved for this effort?
Before I instituted these rules, I would often find that I might have a list of five things I intended to accomplish in a given day, and a day of seemingly solid work would pass without finishing the first task on the list.
At this time of year, all of this leads me to reflect on whether I am doing enough reflecting throughout my typical workweek. The constant hum of new ideas and services on the Internet make it possible to literally spend months on a constant stream of new initiatives – each one appearing more promising than the next. Yet, it’s also possible that none of these efforts will ultimately add to the success of the business.
Ultimately, success requires extraordinary discipline. It’s not the discipline of hard work. (In our era, that’s almost too easy.) It’s the discipline that comes from strategic thinking, the strength to focus on your agenda and the ability to be absolutely ruthless in how you allocate your time.
Success also requires the discipline to be completely honest with yourself about what is (and isn’t) working. Optimism is a necessary trait for winning solo entrepreneurs, but it can easily translate into unfounded positive delusions. It’s critical to see your business environment as it is and as you hope to make it – not as you want it to be.
So, as I reflect in this season of reflection, I ask myself a few questions related to these issues: How have I been spending the bulk of my time for the past few months? Are there ways I could have significantly cut the time spent on these activities? If so, what would have been the relevant trade-offs? Am I acting through strategic insights rather than reacting to other forces? And will I recognize the opportunity to make these changes in 2010?
It’s easy to be busy. It’s hard to accomplish something.
“
(Via SiliconBeat.)
HP Ink Costs More Than Human Blood: “
As this graph shows, printer ink is rather expensive, and costs more than things like human blood or a barrel of crude oil. [via ReflectionOf. Me]
“
(Via Consumerist.)
IP counterproductive for science and innovation: “
An excerpt from an editorial in The Guardian on November 26, by John Sulston, with Sarah Chan and Professor John Harris (participants in the Manchester Manifesto for an Open Science)
John Sulston:
‘The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it: drugs are ‘evergreened’ when patents are on the verge of running out – companies buy up the patents of potential rivals in order to prevent them being turned into products. Moreover, the prices charged, especially for pharmaceuticals, are often grossly in excess of those required to cover costs and make reasonable profits.
IP rights are beginning to permeate every area of scientific endeavour. Even in universities, science and innovation, which have already been paid for out of the public purse, are privatised and resold to the public via patents acquired by commercial interests. The drive to commercialise science has overtaken not only applied research but also ‘blue-skies’ research, such that even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit.
For example, it is estimated that some 20% of individual human genes have been patented already or have been filed for patenting. As a result, research on certain genes is largely restricted to the companies that hold the patents, and tests involving them are marketed at prohibitive prices. We believe that this poses a very real danger to the development of science for the public good.
The fruits of science and innovation have nourished our society and economy for years, but nations unable to navigate our regulatory system are often excluded, as are vulnerable individuals. We need to consider how to balance the needs of science as an industry with the plight of those who desperately need the products of science.
Clearly it is vitally important that we continue to protect science and enable it to flourish. Science and the many benefits that science has produced have played a crucial part in our history and produced vast improvements to human welfare. It would be remiss if we failed to recognise the importance of science as an industry and investment in research to national and regional economic development; but against these economic concerns (individual, corporate and national) an overriding consideration must be the interests of the public and of humanity present and future. Science as an industry may be booming, but the benefits of science need to be more efficiently and more cheaply placed in the service of the public.
This is of particular concern in the developing world, where drugs that are routinely available in high-income countries are unaffordable or inaccessible, and treatments for diseases of the poor are simply not being developed due to lack of a viable market. Existing inequities in knowledge capital make developing nations hostage to more technologically advanced countries for their basic health and development needs, and restrict the participation in research that would allow them to redress this imbalance.
For science to continue to flourish, it is necessary that the knowledge it generates be made freely and widely available. IP rights have the tendency to stifle access to knowledge and the free exchange of ideas that is essential to science. So, far from stimulating innovation and the dissemination of the benefits of science, IP all too often hampers scientific progress and restricts access to its products.’
“
(Via P2P Foundation.)
