4 ms·

I've given this some thought and developed a notion that I hope to actually implement. Critique welcome. Large companies can identify innovators, or at least l

I've given this some thought and developed a notion that I hope to actually implement. Critique welcome. Large companies can identify innovators, or at least learn to do so. In some cases, it will be as obvious as the founders of companies they've acquired. In other cases, it may be simply polling the engineering and product management ranks and tracking down those who are considered innovative by their peers. Or, you may even make it egalitarian and offer developers a 'year of invention' after some number of years at the company. One point I think is key is to create an environment that is conducive to innovation. Relaxed administrative obligations, flat organization structure and a budget. Nominal oversight and justification requirements. Then, a simple guideline: What is developed needs to be on a path to becoming a product or service the company could offer. Innovators could be supported with HR for finding contractors or consultants to work with, purchasing for buying components or equipment, marketing and business development persons could be assigned to the program to help innovators with business plans, cost and pricing analysis, market research. The innovation organization could be placed in a work space with dedicated space for their project, and a common space to meet and collaborate with other innovators. Rewards for successful products could simply be additional stock grants and recognition, or perhaps simply another tour of innovation. The risks would be if the program were abused and budget misspent, or the innovator simply didn't do any real work, or went off the rails with their projects. Also, development projects could have many budget sizes from virtually nothing to multiple millions. Perhaps the business development partner could help with proposals to request additional budget, once prototypes were far enough along to be compelling. A multi-billion corporation could easily allocate a few million to this type of environment and keep a dozen or so innovators busy. You'd only need one success every so often to make it worthwhile.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Also, time. A year should be a year, not two week periods with endless "how's it going?" and check in meetings where you need something to present.
- kochthesecond 6y ago
  Ugh.. This hits too close to home.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Waterfall 6y ago
Kodak could have been first with the digital camera. They failed the first point.
- slavik81 6y ago
  > I assumed like many that Kodak had a bright future ahead because they had a world-renowned brand and excellent scientists and engineers. What many at the time didn't yet recognize was that there was no business model in digital cameras that would employ 100 thousand engineers, managers, factory workers, technicians, and staff. There were certainly no senior managers willing or able to sacrifice the golden goose of film to pursue something entirely different. From "Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597
  - dbcurtis 6y ago
    > There were certainly no senior managers willing or able to sacrifice the golden goose of film to pursue something entirely different. Bingo. Innovator’s Dilemma. You have to be willing to eat your own lunch because otherwise a competitor will eat your lunch.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Kodak was first with the consumer digital camera. It was marketed by Apple as the QuickTake but made by Kodak.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
You're describing a skunk works. Skunk works have to be secretive and they must be supported by the highest levels of management. Otherwise lesser employees (who are not good enough to join the skunk works) will get jealous and make it their mission in life to destroy the skunk works. Eventually one or two of them will get enough political power to make it happen, and then the skunk works is toast.
- bob1029 6y ago
  I don't think it has to be secretive. I think it should be an objective that is out there for others to aim for with very public and open policies regarding qualifications and on-going membership. When you make something secretive and hide all the rules around it, you are much more likely going to wind up with salty employees when (not if) they discover its existence. If you are in an organization filled with vindictive employees, I recommend terminating them all if you have the power, or finding a new place to work. Not everyone can be part of the A-team. Trying to constantly appease those who feel entitled to the highest levels of the software engineering ivory tower will never end in a good outcome for the organization and will dis-incentivize those who actually bust their ass every day.
  - dreamcompiler 6y ago
    > If you are in an organization filled with vindictive employees, I recommend terminating them all if you have the power, or finding a new place to work. Finding and terminating toxic employees is the single best thing every company should do to improve its health, but few do. Probably because some of the most toxic people are very skilled at looking good to their superiors while causing huge amounts of damage.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    > vindictive employees, I recommend terminating them all I think that's not how it'd work. Instead, those vindictive people would be managers, and they'd be the ones that provided you with information, and based on what they said, maybe statistics they show, it'd seem like obviously good ideas to scrap those projects

MattGaiser 6y ago

Also, time. A year should be a year, not two week periods with endless "how's it going?" and check in meetings where you need something to present.

kochthesecond 6y ago
Ugh.. This hits too close to home.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Waterfall 6y ago

Kodak could have been first with the digital camera. They failed the first point.

slavik81 6y ago
> I assumed like many that Kodak had a bright future ahead because they had a world-renowned brand and excellent scientists and engineers. What many at the time didn't yet recognize was that there was no business model in digital cameras that would employ 100 thousand engineers, managers, factory workers, technicians, and staff. There were certainly no senior managers willing or able to sacrifice the golden goose of film to pursue something entirely different. From "Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597
- dbcurtis 6y ago
  > There were certainly no senior managers willing or able to sacrifice the golden goose of film to pursue something entirely different. Bingo. Innovator’s Dilemma. You have to be willing to eat your own lunch because otherwise a competitor will eat your lunch.
scarface74 6y ago
Kodak was first with the consumer digital camera. It was marketed by Apple as the QuickTake but made by Kodak.

dreamcompiler 6y ago

You're describing a skunk works. Skunk works have to be secretive and they must be supported by the highest levels of management. Otherwise lesser employees (who are not good enough to join the skunk works) will get jealous and make it their mission in life to destroy the skunk works. Eventually one or two of them will get enough political power to make it happen, and then the skunk works is toast.

bob1029 6y ago
I don't think it has to be secretive. I think it should be an objective that is out there for others to aim for with very public and open policies regarding qualifications and on-going membership. When you make something secretive and hide all the rules around it, you are much more likely going to wind up with salty employees when (not if) they discover its existence. If you are in an organization filled with vindictive employees, I recommend terminating them all if you have the power, or finding a new place to work. Not everyone can be part of the A-team. Trying to constantly appease those who feel entitled to the highest levels of the software engineering ivory tower will never end in a good outcome for the organization and will dis-incentivize those who actually bust their ass every day.
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
  > If you are in an organization filled with vindictive employees, I recommend terminating them all if you have the power, or finding a new place to work. Finding and terminating toxic employees is the single best thing every company should do to improve its health, but few do. Probably because some of the most toxic people are very skilled at looking good to their superiors while causing huge amounts of damage.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  > vindictive employees, I recommend terminating them all I think that's not how it'd work. Instead, those vindictive people would be managers, and they'd be the ones that provided you with information, and based on what they said, maybe statistics they show, it'd seem like obviously good ideas to scrap those projects