This morning, I tweeted a post from the Harvard Business Review by H. James Wilson titled “Understanding the Language of Innovation.” Within thirty minutes, it was retweeted. What grabbed me while browsing the site was this quote from a commenter (“aaroneden”): “The word ‘innovator’ should only be granted to those who are catalysts for change – change that makes our world a better place. Now let’s define ‘better’…”
In reading through the posts and readers’ comments, there is little ambiguity on what should be considered innovation. What is up for discussion are definitions and terms, as well as how to most effectively do so. The context in which innovation is conveyed especially in the technology and general business realms seems to be how to make it “successful.” In other words, how to improve what is existing or not yet in existence, combined with generating revenue from it. One commenter (“Joe”) posted what he said is a quote from Steve Jobs’: “Innovation is creativity that ships…”
The statement by the former commenter I mentioned about now needing to define what is considered “better” prompts a shift in thought and focus. Instead of merely looking at iconic, innovative successes like those of Apple and Google, we could look at what these innovations are doing to improve the lives of people in a better way.
We can take for granted that the innovation of Facebook has changed the way people communicate. Many debate whether it is for “better,” and for whom. It goes without saying the success of Facebook is better for the founders, investors and employees. It can also be viewed as being better for users. There is now a “better” way of being able to communicate faster and easily share real-time content with many instantaneously.
However, others on the opposite end of the discussion could say it is not so much better that more hours are being spent away from real-life relationships, including in-person communication, and let’s not forget time spent away from personal and work matters. How many people do you know keep Facebook open throughout an entire work day or class session?
So who’s to say what a “better” anything really is? This reflection reminds me of discussions in my Political Science class on modern political theorists including John Locke about the individual and Jean-Jacques Rousseau about the general will.
Should “better” be considered by what individuals collectively feel it is? (This could be determined by voting or surveys ala Locke, but do we have the time and resources to poll everything?) Or should the meaning be what is determined by what the general population deems is so? (This could be determined not after discussion or by a vote, but ways in which an administrator or civil servant of some nature facilitates to help determine this so no individuals are influenced by another ala Rousseau.) Or perhaps going along with the innate good feeling we get when we think of what’s better can be enough to continue to carry us along the innovative path to a better world.
After that is determined, who then determines when what people decided as being “better” will be done? In the case of Facebook’s ever changing policies and features, it seems that at the end of the day, defaulting to doing the right thing lasts beyond any innovation.