Much has been said and written about innovation, including by one of the authors of this column. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [6] [7] [8] [9] Today we are pleased to add the perspective of Fis. Max Hofbauer, a physicist by training, but an innovator and problem-solver by nature and dedication. It is with great pleasure that we welcome him to this ongoing conversation on innovation and UPAEP’s relationship to this fundamentally important topic. Together, the authors bring over 75 years of experience in innovation as a personal lifestyle and focus, with experiences in dozens of industries and countless projects across an extremely wide spectrum of disciplines. This shared background in innovation, in practice and not just in theory, has been a rich source of conversation on the subject. Today, we set the first of these dialogues with innovators on paper to share with our readers.
Lately, the term innovation has become a buzzword, almost a part of everyday life. An endless parade of articles and web pages talk about the procedures, sacrificial offerings and propitiatory chanting required to call upon the elusive muses of innovation. Its self-proclaimed gatekeepers and gurus reserving their transcendental knowledge for those wealthy few who are willing to buy their admittance into the sanctum sanctorum.
The deeper and more tangibly real concept of innovation, however, is known only to those adventurous characters who have been there, at the breakwaters of the human spirit. Strangely enough, a cruel and lonely place that does its best to grind the unwilling and unable into the dust of failure and defeat. Those who succeed can pay a heavy cost, but the rewards are also very important.
It may be helpful to know that everything that defines us as human beings necessarily also predates our current state of humanity. This single fact alone hinders our ability to understand how we became what we are. Even though we are a natural product of our environment, our minds are a somehow also a product of themselves. The brain gave birth to language and in turn, language made the brain grow and become more complex, like an ouroboros biting its own tail. While such a bootstrapping process is very effective, completely understanding the fundamental processes involved eludes us, as we are the very product that we are attempting to understand from an objective (exterior) perspective – something that may well be impossible to accomplish fully. The same may also be said about bipedal walking, innovation, or any other of our fundamentally human.
The quest to understand the inner workings of the innovative mind hasn't been very successful so far. Other aspects of fundamental humanity have had some more apparent success. For example, comprehension of bipedal walking got a big boost in recent years. Various companies and research centers have been throwing bales of money at the apparently simple problem (toddlers can learn without much cognitive depth, after all), until they finally managed to create a robotic imitation of the human walking, running, jumping and even impressive displays of parkour. The unexpected complexity of the task, the immense number-crunching power and extreme speed of the computers necessary to achieve a walking robot, show us that nothing about this process is “simple”. It’s a function, well hidden in the depths of our minds, that executes in the background and refuses any scrutiny by available means. So, in order to teach a robot how to walk, we had to explore first principles, as if we knew nothing about walking other than simplistic observations.
The same conclusions can very probably be extended to innovation, where the fact that it is even more fundamental to our human nature hides the process behind still heavier shrouds. Some tell-tale signs point clearly in that direction, like the fact that innovation can be transmitted more effectively by example than by word, as is the case for walking. You could fill volumes describing the process of walking – but a simple demonstration can accomplish as much, if not more, in communicating the concept. We could write about innovation until the heat death of the universe – and it will never be as effective as bringing a new apprentice into the workspace and getting their hands into a real problem.
There are many additional complications in defining/explaining/transmitting innovation. For example, the very complexity of these hard-to-explain topics have been a haven for charlatans and imitators, each contributing an apparently inexhaustible stream of confusion and obfuscation to the subject. For real innovators, the very qualities that help sustain their innovation can also lead to a difficulty in understanding them wholly. Innovators are highly irreverent people, unwilling to accept the status quo, stubborn and dedicated to the task at hand. These qualities are necessary, even desirable in someone that needs to be able to go on even in the face of a practically guaranteed failure. Thomas Edison took better than a thousand different approaches until the first light bulb glowed steadily, without burning up its filament. No typical, reasonable, person would be able to perform such a project. A vanishingly tiny portion of humanity can face a thousand failures knowing the next one is just one step closer to success. Hardy and stubborn people are the stock innovators are made of! And yet, this same stock is not easy to study, it doesn’t fit into bureaucracies well, and can be very complicated (if not at times downright impossible) to manage. It can wither and die in the captivity of an overly-regimented life or starve into nothingness fed a diet of “sameness” and predictability. As such, it can be difficult (some may argue, impossible) to place innovation in a very controlled setting and measure performance indicators or test theories of innovation.
And yet, for all these difficulties, innovation is something that can be learned. While not necessarily something that requires a university, a university is absolutely a place that can configure itself to propitiate innovation learning and the process of innovation itself. Innovation is not found in lists of verbs, in government forms, in numbers of credits, or trackable measurands or outcomes. Innovation is found in individuals, and it is bringing together these individuals, giving them an environment to flourish and succeed, and nurturing their innovative spirit where any university will succeed or fail.
Each time a Senior Innovator takes a pupil (student, apprentice, candidate, etc.), one very simple lesson is taught over and over again: “Don’t quit! Even if you cannot fathom a solution right now, it will almost introduce itself further down the road”.
Even through the incessant repetition of this same procedure, the pupil almost never realizes the secret behind the curtain. There are too many other things going on, exerting pressure and hijacking the pupil’s attention. After a great many turns of the wheel, the pupil finally comes to understand: however grim the first outlook, there is always a workable solution in the end (though not ever a perfect one). Trying out one path after another, in a seemingly endless succession, the quest is more like the slow progress of a blind man, feeling his way through a debris-strewn, hazardous terrain, than the heroic explorer that so many people envision. This no-haste approach, knowing that a calm harbor waits at the end of the journey, is an absolute must for any innovator.
The ability to carry out innovative work without quitting due to despair or a lack of confidence, depends upon prior experiences on the same vast battlefield – these are acquired with time, but the experienced innovator can also serve as a necessary guide and anchor point. Innovation can only be performed on the base of ample knowledge and cognitive resources, as well as inborn curiosity and ingenuity – the former can be acquired and honed, the latter are a more innate quality. It is the balance of these things that provide the tools to accomplish the job. Even someone that may consider themselves only marginally creative, can, and should, be coaxed into innovation under the wing of an experienced innovator. The sublime bliss of a real “Eureka” moment’s effect is not only a reminder of long-gone philosophers, but a very real part of an innovator´s everyday life. Once achieved, this sweet nectar of success is brought into sharp relief versus the perseverance past all the failure and frustration. The true innovators will find this trade-off to be a worthwhile bargain and be set upon a lifelong path of personal growth.
We firmly believe that anyone can learn to innovate. Innovation is at the core human experience and our existence. However, not everyone will have the patience to find true fulfilment in innovation.
In the following weeks we will explore this concept of innovation more fully, including strategies for fostering a more successful innovation process and culture. While not limited to the university setting, it is our belief that the university is one of the natural “homes” for this mindset and opportunities for innovation. However, without understanding the true nature of innovation, it may be difficult for us to set the best conditions to achieve a high-functioning innovation ecosystem. We look forward to exploring these concepts together, and through these explorations building a better UPAEP, Puebla, Mexico, and world.
Referencias / References
[1] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Digitalized Innovation Ecosystem: “iideas”," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online]. https://goo.gl/y47hbp
https://goo.gl/y47hbp
[2] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Innovation and Diversity: Tomorrow’s Leader on the World Stage," Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online].
https://upress.mx
[3] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Leadership in a disruption ecosystem," Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online].
https://upress.mx
[4] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Research and Innovation Reform as a Transformation Catalyst in Mexico," Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2017. [Online].
https://goo.gl/V2xSqd
[5] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Science Whys," Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position paper 2018. [Online].
https://upress.mx/index.php/opinion/editoriales/innovacion-y-tecnologia/2250-science-whys
[6] uan Manuel López Oglesby, "Science, Strategy, and SWOT," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online].
https://goo.gl/WrVVNK
[7] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Skills, Strategy, and the University," Graduate School, UPAEP, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online].
https://upress.mx/index.php/opinion/editoriales/innovacion-y-tecnologia/3026-skills-strategy-and-the-university
[8] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Some see things that are.," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2017. [Online].
https://goo.gl/wqSfyS
[9] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "The Economic Impact of Innovation," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2017. [Online]
https://goo.gl/KNcFih
Dr. Juan Manuel López Oglesby
Director, Posgrados en Ciencias de la Ingeniería Biomédica
UPAEP
Fis. Alfred Max Hofbauer Balmori
Consultor Tecnológico e Innovador, CESAT
UPAEP
