innovation as history making. ontological design and the disclosure of the new

Innovation in Practice

Innovation in Practice Pilot 2010

DISCOURSES IN INNOVATION 1:

DISCLOSING THE (K)NEW:

LEARNING, SKILL ACQUISITION AND THE PRODUCTIVIST LIMITS OF INNOVATION THEORY




INNOVATION AS CREATIVE DESTRUCTION:SCHUMPETER AND BEYOND




INNOVATION AS HISTORY MAKING:ONTOLOGICAL DESIGN AND THE DISCLOSURE OF THE (K)NEW


Benoît GodinInnovation: The History of a Category

Genealogical History of the Category of ―Innovation‖

Innovation and the “novelty” of human creation

Innovation as ―creative novelty‖ is produced by the

interrelationship between the three concepts of imitation,

Invention, and Innovation

Innovation as a “break with the past”

Michel Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge

By episteme, we mean. . . the total set of relations that unite, at a given period, the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures, sciences, and possibly formalized systems. . . . The episteme is not a form of knowledge (connaissance) or type of rationality which, crossing the boundaries of the most varied sciences, manifests the sovereign unity of a subject, a spirit, or a period; it is the sovereign unity of a subject, a spirit, or a period: it is the totality of relations that can be discovered, for a given period, between the sciences when one analyses them at the level of discursive regularities

Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans.Sheridan, A. M. Harper Collins. New York.

The fundamental codes of a culture - those governing its language, its schemas of perception, its

exchanges, its techniques, its values, the hierarchy of its practices - establish for every man, from the very

first, the empirical orders with which he will be dealing and within which he will be at home. At the other

extremity of thought, there are the scientific theories or the philosophical interpretations which explain

why order exists in general, what universal law it obeys, what principle can account for it, and why this

particular order has been established and not some other. But between these two regions, so distant from

one another, lies a domain which, even though its role is mainly an intermediary one, is nonetheless

fundamental: it is more confused, more obscure, and probably less easy to analyse. It is here that a

culture, imperceptibly deviating from the empirical orders prescribed for it by its primary codes, instituting

an initial separation from them, causes them to lose their original transparency, relinquishes its immediate

and invisible powers, frees itself sufficiently to discover that these orders are perhaps not the only possible

ones or the best ones; this culture then finds itself faced with the stark fact that there exists, below the

level of its spontaneous orders, things that are in themselves capable of being ordered, that belong to a

certain unspoken order; the fact, in short, that order exists. As though emancipating itself to some extent

from its linguistic, perceptual, and practical grids, the culture superimposed on them another kind of grid

which neutralized them, which by this superimposition both revealed and excluded them at the same

time, so that the culture, by this very process, came face to face with order in its primary state. It is on the

basis of this newly perceived order that the codes of language, perception, and practice are criticized

and rendered partially invalid.

Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Vintage. New York. p xx-

xxi

Michel FoucaultThe Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences

Luc Boltanski and Eva ChiapelloThe New Spirit of Capitalism

―As an existing concept, constructed around contemporary

ideas, technologies and research, associated with a specific

vocabulary, models of causality and mathematical models, and

formed to offer an alternative to hierarchical algorithms,

‗network' naturally enough finds itself mobilized by capitalism.

Employed in academic works in economics and the sociology of

work - disciplines that helped to provide management with its

theoretical foundations - it was almost bound to invade the

literature addressed to cadres that we have studied. This is how

the forms of capitalist production accede to representation in

each epoch, by mobilizing concepts and tools that were initially

developed largely autonomously in the theoretical sphere or the domain of basic scientific research. This is the case with

neurology and computer science today. In the past, it was true of

such notions as system, structures technostructure, energy,

entropy, evolution, dynamics and exponential growth.‖

Boltanski, L and Chiapello, E. (2005) Trans. Ellliott, G. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Verso. London. p. 104

Manuel CastellsThe Network Society

Haridimos TsoukasComplex Knowledge. Studies in Organizational Epistemology

The world in which we exist – and thus ―innovate‖ within – can only be truly understood according to the ―complex‖ logic of an:

“Open Ontology” as opposed to a ―Closed Ontology‖ – that is a perception of the world or the nature of our existence that sees it as being in a constant state of flux or change, and the future as ―open, unknowable in principle‖ and always holding, ―the possibility of surprise.‖

An “Enactivist Epistemology” as opposed to a ―Representationalist‖ one – that is a perception of the world, or a theory of how we understand it, that recognizes the central role of our own ―enactive‖ participation in its construction, rather than in its ability to transparently ―re-present‖ some absolutely determinable truth or reality.

A “Poetic Praxeology” as opposed to an ―Instrumentalist‖ one – that is, similarly to the ―enactivist‖ position, an understanding of how our own individual creative development, utilization of, or taking up of those ―practices‖ that inform those contexts in which we exist, also contribute to the transformation of that background of historically available ―practices‖ that condition those contexts – much in the same way that a poet transforms the language which they use through their

utilization of it.

Open Ontology/Enactivist Epistemology/Poetic Praxeology

Pheonomenology/Pragmatism/Cybernetics/Systems Theory

Heinz Von Foerster born November 13, 1911 –

October 2, 2002

Stephen Toulmin - 25 March 1922 - 4 December

2009

Stafford Beer – born September 25, 1926 - August

23, 2002

Humberto Maturana September 14, 1928 –

Alasdair Macintyre - 12 January 1929

Richard Rorty – born October 4, 1931 – June 8,

2007

George Lakoff - May 24, 1941

Francisco Varela - September 7, 1946 – May 28,

2001

Charles Taylor - born 28 January 1948

William James - January 11, 1842 – August 26,

1910

Henri Bergson born, 8 October 1859 – 4 January

1941

John Dewey – born October 20, 1859 – June 1,

1952

Alfred North Whitehead born 15 February 1861 –

30 December 1947

Ludwig Wittgenstein - born 26 April 1889 – 29

April 1951

Michael Polanyi - March 11, 1891 – February 22,

1976

Martin Heidegger - born September 26, 1889 –

May 26, 1976

Hans-Georg Gadamer - born February 11, 1900 –

March 13, 2002

Gregory Bateson – born 9 May 1904 – 4 July 1980

Process Philosophy, Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Pragmatism,

Cybernetics, Systems Theory, Cognitive Science, Enactive Mind

Complex/Emergent/Enactive/Collaborative

Clay Shirky - Charles Leadbeater - Chris Anderson - Nassim Nicholas Taleb - Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams

Gareth MorganImages of Organization

Catherine MalabouWhat Should We Do with Our Brain?

Slavoj ŽižekFirst as Tragedy, Then as Farce – The “Logic” of “Fetishistic Disavowal”

―Not to replicate the caricature of the world: this is what we

should do with our brain. To refuse to be flexible individuals who

combine a permanent control of the self with a capacity to self

modify at the whim of fluxes, transfers, and exchanges, for fear of

explosion. ―

―To ask 'What should we do with our brain?" is above all to

visualize the possibility of saying no to an afflicting economic,

political, and mediatic culture that celebrates only the triumph of

flexibility, blessing obedient individuals who have no greater merit

than that of knowing how to bow their heads with a smile.‖

Malabou, C. (2008) What Should We Do with Our Brain? Trans. Rand, S. Fordham University Press. New York.

Donald Schon and Chris ArgyrisSingle and Double Loop Learning

Single-loop LearningSingle-loop learning is an active process of organisational enquiry

that results in the modification of the theory-in-use to keep

organisational performance within acceptable parameters based

on values and accepted norms. The values and norms themselves

– the governing variables – are not changed (Argyris and Schön,

1996, p.20).

Double-loop Learning

Double-loop learning (Figure 1) involves the exploring and

sometimes painful reconsideration of values and strategies. This

can be done individually or on behalf of an organisation when

agents reassess the effectiveness of the organisational values.

Double loop learning is a critical part of an organisations culture of

it is to maintain unity of vision and purpose during times of

conflicting requirements or environmental change.

Joseph SchumpeterInnovation as Creative Destruction

Henry ChesbroughOpen Innovation

“Open” vesus “Closed” Innovation

Closed Innovation – Centralised R&D

The institution of the central research lab and internal product

development was thus a critical element of the rise of the

modern industrial corporation. Centrally orgaizatized

development were central to companies' strategies and were

regarded as critical business investments. R&D Functions were a

salient feature in the knowledge landscape of the economy,

relatively insulated from the universities and small enterprises,

relatively unconnected to the government, and largely self-

contained.

Underlying Logic

The logic underlying this approach to innovation was one of closed

centralized, internal R&D. At its root, the logic implies a need for deep

vertical integration. In other words, in order to do anything, one must

do everything internally, from tools and materials, to product design

and manufacturing, to sales, service, and support. Outside the fortified

central R&D castles, the knowledge landscape was assumed to be

rather barren. Consequently, the firm should rely on itself - and not

feeble outside suppliers-for its critical technologies.

Xerox

Similarly, Xerox needed to make its own toner, its own copier, its own

light lens, and its own feeding and sorting subsystems in order to deliver

high-volume, high-quality xerography to its customers. Because Xerox

was pushing mechanical and electrical systems father than anyone

else in its applications, there was no available supplier base with which

to work. During the early years, Xerox found that it even needed to

make its own paper; to get the optimal paper characteristics that

would feed well through its copier systems.

Erosion Factor 1:The Increasing Availability and Mobility of Skilled Workers

Despite the company's dominance, the mobility of disk-drive

engineers caused IBM's leadership to erode over time. An engineer

named Al Shugart left IBM to go to Memorex, where he helped

Memorex improve its hard-disk drives that plugged into IBM

mainframe computers. Then he left Memorex to start a company

called Shugart Associates' pursuing a new kind of hard-disk drive, the

8 inch disk drive, intended for minimal computers and workstations.

Eventually when he fell out with the backers of Shugart, he left to start

another new company, called Sea-gate, which made still smaller 5

inch drives for personal computers. With each job change he made,

Shugart took a substantial number of people with him to the new

company. Each of Shugart's new start-up companies was thus able to

hit the ground running.

Erosion Factor 2: The Venture Capital Market

Prior to 1980, little VC was available in the United States. Although

there were start-up companies that arose from people who migrated

out of large firms, these new enterprises had to struggle to find capital.

The ability of companies to attract older talented staff to due new

venture was also impaired by a lack of adequate capital to justify file

risk of leaving a well-capitalized company for an unknown start-up

company.

Erosion Factor 3 : External Options for Ideas Sitting on the Shelf

The earlier tensions between the incentives of the research group and

those of the development group gave rise to a buffer inventory of

ideas sitting on the shelf. The tensions between these functions are not

new, but now there is an important difference. As a result of the

combination of erosion factors I and 2 there exists a second, outside

path to market for many of these ideas.

Erosion Factor 4:The Increasing Capability of External Suppliers

When companies like IBM wanted to increase the performance of

their early mass-storage systems, they found that they could not rely

on external suppliers to supply components of sufficient technical

capability in sufficient volume with high quality. More generally,

companies seeking to create new products and services in the

middle of the twentieth century found that the surrounding

environment lacked the requisite knowledge, production

experience, and financial capital to serve as reliable partners in

building the materials, components, and systems needed to serve

the market. Thanks to the confluence of Many of the factors

already noted, such as tile expansion of universities and university

enrollments, the availability of well-trained workers to companies of

all sizes, and the increased presence of VC, the external supply

base is much more developed that it was prior to WWII

Open InnovationNew Attitudes, Directions, and Practices

The traditional paradigm that companies used to manage industrial R&D is indeed over in most industries. But that does not mean that internal R&D itself has become obsolete. What we need is a new logic of innovation to replace the logic of the earlier period. Companies must structure themselves to leverage this distributed landscape of knowledge, instead of ignoring it in the pursuit of their own internal research agendas. Companies increasingly cannot expect to warehouse their technologies, waiting until their own businesses make use of them.

The new logic will exploit this diffusion of knowledge, rather than ignore it. The new logic turns the old assumptions on their head. Instead of making money by hoarding technology for your own use, you make money by leveraging multiple paths to market for your technology. Instead of restricting the research function exclusively to inventing new knowledge, good research practice also includes accessing and integrating external knowledge. Instead of managing intellectual property as a way to exclude anyone else from using your technology, you manage IP to advance your own business model and to profit from your rivals'



INNOVATION AS HISTORY MAKING:ONTOLOGICAL DESIGN AND THE DISCLOSURE OF THE (K)NEW


Disclosing New Worlds:Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity

Hubert Dreyfus – Fernando Flores – Charles Spinosa

Hubert DreyfusPhenomenological Philosophy and critique of Artificial Intelligence

Fernando FloresEngineer, Economist, Politician, Systems Theorist, Cybernetician, Business Consultant.

Terry Winograd and Fernando FloresUnderstanding Computers and Cognition. A New Foundation for Design

Francisco Varela and Humberto MaturanaAutopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living.

Purpose or aims… are not features of the organization of any machine (allo or autopoietic); these notions belong to the domain of our discourse about our actions, that is, they belong to the domain of descriptions, and when applied to a machine, or any system independent from us, they reflect our considering the machine or system in some encompassing context.

Maturana, Humberto and Varela, Francisco. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Dordrecht: D. Reidel

J.L. AustinHow to Do Things With Words

John. R. SearleSpeech Act Theory

For both Austin and Searle language does not simply ―re-present‖ some ultimately verifiable reality, truth, or fact that it unproblematically mediates - and can thus be consensually agreed upon – indeed as Austin originally points out this ―truth-value‖ concept of language is only one part of the nature and function of language. It also – in terms of what both he and Searle will ultimately call ―illocutionary acts‖, ―performative utterances‖, or ―speech acts‖ – also embodies or ―performs‖ reality, facts, or truths rather merely communicating them. Iconic examples of this are sentences like: "I take this man as my lawfully wedded husband" where the sentence is not being used to describe or state what one is 'doing', but being used to actually 'do' it.

―Performative Utterances‖ and ―Illocutionary Acts‖

Types of Speech Acts

Action Technologies

Pluralistic Networks

Charles SpinosaProfessor of English, Comparative Literature, and Business Consultant

Haridimos TsoukasComplex Knowledge. Studies in Organizational Epistemology

The world in which we exist – and thus ―innovate‖ within – can only be truly understood according to the ―complex‖ logic of an:

“Open Ontology” as opposed to a ―Closed Ontology‖ – that is a perception of the world or the nature of our existence that sees it as being in a constant state of flux or change, and the future as ―open, unknowable in principle‖ and always holding, ―the possibility of surprise.‖

An “Enactivist Epistemology” as opposed to a ―Representationalist‖ one – that is a perception of the world, or a theory of how we understand it, that recognizes the central role of our own ―enactive‖ participation in its construction, rather than in its ability to transparently ―re-present‖ some absolutely determinable truth or reality.

A “Poetic Praxeology” as opposed to an ―Instrumentalist‖ one – that is, similarly to the ―enactivist‖ position, an understanding of how our own individual creative development, utilization of, or taking up of those ―practices‖ that inform those contexts in which we exist, also contribute to the transformation of that background of historically available ―practices‖ that condition those contexts – much in the same way that a poet transforms the language which they use through their

utilization of it.

Open Ontology/Enactivist Epistemology/Poetic Praxeology

Disclosing New Worlds:Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity

The most original or primordial way in which we encounter our world

- or ―ontologically disclose‖ it – is through our ―practical‖

engagement with it rather than studying its formal characteristics.

Truly innovative or ―history making‖ modes of disclosure are ones in

which our conventional modes of understanding, ―practice,‖ or

―being-in-the-world‖ are completely transformed.

The three main ways in which we can engender this process:

Articulation, Cross-appropriation, and Reconfiguration.

―Articulating is the most familiar kind of style change. It occurs when a style is brought into

sharper focus… All articulating makes what is implicit explicit.‖

This is usually done through a process of ratification, refinement, and expediency.

Cross-appropriation takes place when one disclosive space takes over from another

disclosive space a practice that it could not generate on its own but that it finds useful.

The example that they provide for this is like when a technology like a mobile phone that

was originally designed or conceived for a business context gets adopted by the wider

community and carries with it all ―affordances‖ and modes of behaviour or use that

are/were central to that technology. Or alternatively when the ―logic‖ of human rights and

equal opportunity are mobilized by women in order to demand gender equality.

―Reconfiguration is a more substantial way in which a style can change. In this case some

marginal aspect of the practices coordinated by a style become dominant..‖

The examples that they provide for this are like when, with the advent of modern machine

technology, the process through which a rider ―governed‖ a horse and tried to

―symbiotically‖ guide it, turned into a relationship of control with the automobile, or a

master craftsman who had to respect the limitations and constraints of the materials that

he used could seemlessly bend them according to his will or when curiosity and play turns

into ―non-productive‖ facinated absorption of the internet.

John F. KennedyConnection of the ―logic‖ or ―identity‖ of the ―frontiersman‖ or the ―pioneer‖ that was so deeply

entrenched within the American psyche with that of the astronaut and the exploration of the ―final frontiers‖ of space.

Indra NooyiChairman and CEO of PepsiCo

The feminist ―cross-appropriation‖ of the ―logic‖ of various forms of social organization, equality,

and rights has created an entire new way of both dealing with and thinking through the

questions of gender equality.

The InternetThe ―non-productive‖ but essential nature of curiosity and play in learning is turned into fascinated absorption and

our concepts of identity and subjectivity are ―morphed‖ almost unrecognizably

Dear Chauncey:As we discussed, I am in the process of starting a new enterprise that takes the work that we have done together in the past to the ―next frontier‖ if you will, by putting it in the center of what people need to cope and thrive in the reality of our world today.

I have no doubt that the work we did together in the past, at Action Technologies and Business Design Associates, was world class work. Among other things, we invented The Coordinator, we developed a theory of communication and conversation, we created a discipline for software design rooted in the claim that an enterprise is a network of commitments, and we created a discipline for process analysis and design rooted in the same claim. Many people have experienced the benefits of learning to be what we called ―the observer of the observer‖ and of developing the capacity to design while fully engaged in action.

As you know, the central aspect of our work is the understanding that the world is not a fixed reality. Human beings are not passive Cartesian observers. We are intentional actors, inventors, ‗configurators‘, and interpreters of the world.

However, we are not only intentional beings. We are also social and historical beings. We are receptors and inventors of traditions, religions, philosophies, institutions, laws and so forth. For everything, we depend on everyday coordination with others.

Paradoxically, people feel more and more isolated in the increasingly global, interconnected world. As our access to information and web-enabled networks grows, and our capacity to connect to other people expands, people are generally more lost as to how to articulate their identities, build a reputation, develop new offers. Many people realize that they don‘t have the skills necessary to navigate in a constantly changing world, but don‘t know what to do about it. Hence, many people live in fear and anxiety about the future, and lack confidence not only in their capacity to cope with the reality at hand, but with our leaders‘ capacity as well. Over and over, despite the best of intentions, we see our politicians making things worse.

Yet, there are a few who are not lost. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are interesting case studies for us of people who have been able to successfully navigate the realities of the world today. None of these men have PhDs in management — two of them did not even finish college — yet, they were receptive to the world around them, knew how to resonate with situations they found themselves in, and they all invented themselves, and their companies accordingly. As Alan Kay once said: ‖ the best way to predict the future is to invent it.‖ But how were these people able to configure the world that they invented? Were they born with this capacity? Why aren‘t there more examples of people like Gates, Jobs, Page and Brin?

A simple answer is that our schooling has been focused on the acquisition of knowledge and the application of concepts, but as knowledge becomes a commodity, it is increasingly evident that this is not what we need to cope and thrive in today‘s world. Instead, we need new practices that are not trivial — practices that allow us to cope with an increasingly global, constantly changing world, where communication is instant, and our identities are examined and at risk at all times.

As you know very well, practices are new ways of being that evolve over time. To configure and master them requires biological transformation, social mastery and spiritual strength. In our work together, we had some important successes in configuring and bringing new practices to our clients. However, we were limited by the amount of time required to ―cook.‖ Our experience showed that we could produce practical business results for clients, but we could not produce ―embodied wisdom‖ for the individuals we worked with without a significant amount of reflection, a luxury that is not always available for people. On the other hand, reflection alone is not sufficient. If people only study and read about what we are talking about, they will not necessarily learn to act. In the end, learning happens in the body. A person is said to ―know‖ once he or she is able to do something they were not able to do before. As such, immersion in a space where action is required is critical for embodied learning to take place.

Technology today, combined with the work that we have done in the past, opens up the possibility to move people quickly from theory to practice, allowing us to produce a significant breakthrough in the embodied learning of skills and practices that are critical for the 21st century. One of the tools that I have been using to teach people to navigate this new world, for example, is games — online social games. Using these games, we have been able to create virtual laboratories for embodied learning where people learn to:

work with others in teams;work with other cultures;work across distances;create trust and intimacy with others, particularly with people from different cultures; and

develop ―mastery of network orchestration,‖ a new term that I‘ve coined to capture the idea of being able to mobilize many resources in a network, external to an individual or to the organization he or she belongs to.