May 30, 2004

OUTSIDE THE BOX:

Where to Get a Good Idea: Steal It Outside Your Group (MICHAEL ERARD, 5/22/04, NY Times)

Got a good idea? Now think for a moment where you got it. A sudden spark of inspiration? A memory? A dream?

Most likely, says Ronald S. Burt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, it came from someone else who hadn't realized how to use it.

"The usual image of creativity is that it's some sort of genetic gift, some heroic act," Mr. Burt said. "But creativity is an import-export game. It's not a creation game."

Mr. Burt has spent most of his career studying how creative, competitive people relate to the rest of the world, and how ideas move from place to place. Often the value of a good idea, he has found, is not in its origin but in its delivery. His observation will undoubtedly resonate with overlooked novelists, garage inventors and forgotten geniuses who pride themselves on their new ideas but aren't successful in getting them noticed. "Tracing the origin of an idea is an interesting academic exercise, but it's largely irrelevant," Mr. Burt said. "The trick is, can you get an idea which is mundane and well known in one place to another place where people would get value out of it."

Mr. Burt, whose latest findings will appear in the American Journal of Sociology this fall, studied managers in the supply chain of Raytheon, the large electronics company and military contractor based in Waltham, Mass., where he worked until last year. Mr. Burt asked managers to write down their best ideas about how to improve business operations and then had two executives at the company rate their quality. It turned out that the highest-ranked ideas came from managers who had contacts outside their immediate work group. The reason, Mr. Burt said, is that their contacts span what he calls "structural holes," the gaps between discrete groups of people.

"People who live in the intersection of social worlds," Mr. Burt writes, "are at higher risk of having good ideas."

People with cohesive social networks, whether offices, cliques or industries, tend to think and act the same, he explains. In the long run, this homogeneity deadens creativity. As Mr. Burt's research has repeatedly shown, people who reach outside their social network not only are often the first to learn about new and useful information, but they are also able to see how different kinds of groups solve similar problems.


The most famous example is Charles Darwin, who looked at the economic theories of the day (mainly Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus) and combined them with local breeding techniques to come up with a theory for how evolution might occur naturally.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 30, 2004 6:26 AM
Comments

Bill Gates is a more modern example. The early personal computer industry was created by a geek subculture that didn't understand (or more often despised) business. He could span both.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 30, 2004 1:14 PM

OJ:

You ignore an astonishing amount of observation and collection.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 30, 2004 10:29 PM

Robert:

Not really. But he did get predatory business practices.

Posted by: oj at May 30, 2004 11:16 PM

Before those "predatory" business practices, the wind beneath Gates' wings were the (as it turned out) fools at Apple, who, had they allowed other manufacturers to license their hardware designs, could have been sitting on a software goldmine.

It reminds me of Xerox PARC, which became famous for not making any money inventing things which other people and companies made billions from.
(The mouse, the GUI, etc.).

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 31, 2004 6:35 AM

The difference being Apple was given its GUI while MicroSoft stole.

Posted by: oj at May 31, 2004 8:28 AM

Michael --

You write "fools at Apple".

You may be right about Apple but not right in this case.

It was the "fools at IBM" that let the PC "out of the bag".

The Apple hardware and software were kept almost entirely inhouse. This decision allowed Apple to keep complete control (like the IBM Mainframe business) but lead to high prices and small market share.

IBM's problem is that the then (and I suppose now) focus on the mainframe business led them to believe that the desktop PC business was just scientific (or engineering) BS. IBM was and probably still is run by the marketing department.

Posted by: Uncle Bill at May 31, 2004 9:17 AM

Gates new idea was to make money selling software. IBM gave software away to sell hardware, Apple held their software hostage in order to sell hardware. Gates, in the early days, pissed off the early PC geekdom by charging for software, as many of them thought software should be freely copied (and many still do).

Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 31, 2004 11:27 AM

Here's speculation: If the Justice Dept. had not attempted to break up IBM's punch-card monopoly in 1951, forcing a consent decree and later business strategic decisions taken not in aid of development of computers but at keeping the feds away, how would computation have developed?

By 1961, the punch-card business was almost extinct.

T. Watson Jr., in 'Father, Son & Co.', claims that IBM could have taken 100% of the computer business in the early '60s if it hadn't had to worry about Justice.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 31, 2004 1:42 PM
« NO, NOT THAT PEOPLES’ CHOICE! | Main | THE HIGH FEELING LOW: »