After inventing the light bulb, Edison faced a monumental hurdle. What good is a light bulb to homes without electricity? What was the greater feat, his invention or the establishment of the supporting technologies and infrastructure that made it useful?
For centuries, man contemplated "flying machines". During the Renaissance, Leonardo DaVinci sketched designs for several, but none ever left the ground.
Burned indelibly into our memories as the fathers of flight, the Wright brothers finally broke the barrier centuries later on December 17, 1903. With Orville Wright at the controls, the first flight lasted a mere 12 seconds . While he and his brother achieved instant fame, commercial success alluded them. That didn't stop others from quickly capitalizing on the newly proven concept.
The Wright's invention demonstrated that a machine could fly. It was tens of thousands of others, most whose names are lost to history, who contributed everything else.
When Tony Hsieh started Zappos, he didn't invent anything new. There was certainly nothing novel about selling shoes or even selling over the internet. Rather he used existing technologies to provide value in a new way.
Facebook and Twitter didn't require new invention, just the creative implementation of existing and emerging technologies.
If you're inclined to invent, the world is waiting. Don't delay.
For those of you that aren't, don't downplay the value of implementation. Finding new ways to make existing technologies more useful, combining them in new ways or finding small ways to incrementally improve them can yield more value and usefulness than the initial invention.
While the fame may go to the inventor or researcher, should more credit be given to those whose vision delivers an invention's value to the world?
Related
This seems to be a common question thats comes up whenever a company wants to "innovate" (whatever that is). Most people gravitate to the notion that a good idea is what you really need, which is wrong. Ideas are a dime a dozen, then real challenge is to execute on an idea (i.e. pick one and do something meaningful with it). After all, innovation should not be the race for a new-new thing. If you get involved in that arms race, then you will come last.
I've put this down to the ol' quest for a silver bullet: most people hope that there's a magic cure for their problems which requires little effort to implement, and they dislike the notion that hard work is key. This is true in many of life's facets, like preferring diet pills and magic foods over exercise and eating less. "If I pay for this, then it will all come good..." Success with innovation, as with so many things, is more a question of hard work than anything else.
Re: your question of credit. I'm with the implementers. Edison might be remembered for the lightbulb, but Samuel Insull's hard work enabled everyone to have one in their homes. We forget that it wasn't even Edison who invented it (though you could argue that he perfected it). Edison was one of many who happened to have the same good idea. Insull changed society forever.
Posted by: Peter Evans-Greenwood | May 31, 2010 at 06:25 AM
Peter - very insightful comments.
Insull is such an excellent example of the point. His role was crucial while, as is so often the case, many others made important contributions as well. Westinghouse pushing AC comes to mind.
Thank you!
Posted by: Rick Ross | May 31, 2010 at 09:39 PM