Why Good Ideas are Bad, with Michael Schrage
Ideas are the wrong unit of measurement for innovation, says author Michael Schrage. Instead he recommends reframing good ideas as testable hypotheses that can be run in a fast, simple, cheap business experiment.
Michael Schrage examines the various roles of models, prototypes, and simulations as collaborative media for innovation risk management. He has served as an advisor on innovation issues and investments to major firms, including Mars, Procter & Gamble, Google, Intel, BT, Siemens, NASDAQ, IBM, and Alcoa. In addition, Schrage has advised segments of the national security community on cyber conflict and cybersecurity issues. He has presented workshops on design experimentation and innovation risk for businesses, organizations, and executive education programs worldwide. Along with running summer workshops on future technologies for the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, he has served on the technical advisory committee of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. In collaboration with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Schrage helped launch a series of workshops sponsored by the Department of Defense on federal complex systems procurement. In 2007, he served as a judge for the Industrial Designers Society of America's global International Design Excellence Awards.
Michael Schrage: By far the most controversial thing I wrote in the book is the notion that good ideas are bad. And being a quasi-academic and somebody who, in theory, loves and likes good ideas this realization, dare I say epiphany, came as a bit of a shock to me. But the reality is when you do a hard-core, realistic, pragmatic analysis of the economic value of ideas you realize for most organizations the overwhelming majority of ideas they have lose the money. They do not break even. Good ideas are bad. Ideas are the wrong unit of analysis for thinking about innovation. Ideas have a great brand, you know. Somebody says, "I have a great idea," people pay attention. If you say, "I have a brilliant hunch," they’re going to look at you like you’re a nut. If you say, "I have a passionate belief," they’re going to look at you like you’re a religious zealot. Ideas have a great brand and under that brand umbrella people sort of overweight someone who says I have a good idea. I think saying that you have a good idea is saying like, “Well, gee.” It’s like an art critic saying, reviewing how much the art costs or how much a sculpture weighs. Ideas are the wrong unit of analysis. Why? Because what happens to the majority of ideas as we try to march them towards implementation? We come to the sad realization that, gee, it seemed like a good idea at the time. And so there’s a bit of a survivorship bias.
You know, the good ideas that survive are celebrated as a good idea. All the “good ideas” that died along the way, cost us money along the way, wasted our time along the way, wasted our emotion along the way. They’re forgotten and buried. Good ideas are bad. My book is about the better unit of analysis if you care about innovation. I think you need to have the rigor and intellectual self-discipline not to think in terms of what is a good idea, but what is a testable hypothesis? What is a testable hypothesis? And you know what? Even that’s not good enough. That testable hypothesis has to be simple to test. It has to be easy to test. And it has to be cheap to test because finding the Higgs boson is a multibillion-dollar hypothesis to test. Most organizations can’t afford to test multibillion-dollar hypotheses. Most organizations don’t have the time or the money, let alone the interest, on this. So one of the most important takeaways I encourage people to think about and rethink about is if you have what you think is a good idea, the best way to get a return on that investment is to reframe that good idea as a testable hypothesis that can be run in a fast, simple, cheap business experiment.
Ideas are the wrong unit of measurement for innovation, says Michael Schrage, author of The Innovator's Hypothesis. This is because so many ostensibly "good ideas" are a drain on capital that eventually end up going nowhere. Instead of investing in ideas, Schrage recommends reframing them as testable hypotheses that can be run in a fast, simple, cheap business experiment. It's out of these that firms and innovators acquire the most value.
A pragmatic approach to fixing an imbalanced system.
- Intentional or not, certain inequalities are inherent in a digital economy that is structured and controlled by a few corporations that don't represent the interests or the demographics of the majority.
- While concern and anger are valid reactions to these inequalities, UCLA professor Ramesh Srinivasan also sees it as an opportunity to take action.
- Srinivasan says that the digital economy can be reshaped to benefit the 99 percent if we protect laborers in the gig economy, get independent journalists involved with the design of algorithmic news systems, support small businesses, and find ways that groups that have been historically discriminated against can be a part of these solutions.
Is there a way for more human-centered algorithms to prevent potentially triggering interactions on social media?
- According to a 2017 study, 71% of people reported feeling better (rediscovery of self and positive emotions) about 11 weeks after a breakup. But social media complicates this healing process.
- Even if you "unfriend", block, or unfollow, social media algorithms can create upsetting encounters with your ex-partner or reminders of the relationship that once was.
- Researchers at University of Colorado Boulder suggest that a "human-centered approach" to creating algorithms can help the system better understand the complex social interactions we have with people online and prevent potentially upsetting encounters.