RonAmok!

Last post, we discussed how ever-shrinking differences between leading and trailing technologies was changing the process of innovation. We talked about how individual inventors, once subservient to organized research and development, may be approaching par with OR&D through access to cheap/powerful microprocessors, cloud-based computing, and networked communities. In this post, let’s discuss the things that those individuals will invent.

Historically, technology leaps that force us to rethink our world leave us temporarily overwhelmed and lost. Without something familiar to hold onto, we end-up acting like artists who are standing in front of large empty canvases, trying to figure out what to do with our infinite palate of colors.

The way to beak such creative logjams is to focus on solving specific problems. Why must we rely on the government to monitor the radiation from a nuclear power plant? What exactly is the water quality in my home town? If we could put accelerometers into every high school football helmet or mouthpiece, could we reduce the number of concussion injuries? The new innovators must focus on solving specific problems that have personal meaning to them.

2012 is shaping up to be the year of the engineer. I’m not just talking just about classically trained engineers who hold engineering degrees. I’m talking about the fact that advances in open source hardware, interchangeable modules, the Internet of Things, and the DIY movement are making engineers out of all of us.

We just need to focus on solving problems that are more important to us than to a company who is looking to solve a problem for the generic marketplace. Why does our street seem to get more potholes than those around it? Does our city have a traffic problem that could be solved by aggregating and studying live congestion data? Are there things at home or work that would better served through automation?

We also need to crank the innovation handle backward by examining the possibilities of the absurd. What if we put a sensor in every blade of grass on a baseball field? What if you could put a microprocessor in your favorite sweater? What if our local high school could launch its own satellite?

The future is either ours to invent, or ours to stare at aimlessly.

What’s it going to be?

Before World War II, most innovation came from the toils of sole inventors with well-known names such as Davinci, Copernicus, Curie, Bell, Edison, Bohr, Maxwell, Newton, Einstein, Faraday and many more. However, the role of the individual innovator changed during WWII, when a need to increase the pace of innovation outstripped the individual’s production capabilities.

The United States responded to the challenge by forming the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) “…to coordinate, supervise, and conduct scientific research on the problems underlying the development, production, and use of mechanisms and devices of warfare.” As a result of the NDRC and other organizations like it, the roots of innovation shifted from the individual inventor to the process of Organized Research and Development (OR&D).

Leading and Trailing Technologies

Organized Research and Development is expensive. It produces leading technologies that require even more resources to commercialize. But with the pace of innovation accelerating, leading technologies don’t hold that spot very long. As new technologies are invented, once-leading technologies eventually become trailing technologies–innovations that may lack their original luster, yet fill a new role. Trailing technologies meet the affordability and functionality requirements of individual inventors.

Many examples of the leading-to-trailing technology exchange show how the innovation cycle has been affected. For example, when transistors replaced vacuum tubes, individual innovators built circuits out of cheap tubes. When integrated circuits (ICs) replaced transistors, individual inventors started building things with transistors. And as Moore’s Law compounded the advances in integrated circuits, trailing IC technologies were scooped up by individual inventors such as Steve Wozniak to build things like personal computers.

For the past sixty years, the differences between leading and trailing technologies were large enough to limit the effectiveness of individual inventors. Not anymore. With trailing technology microprocessors powerful enough to perform real-time processing, standardized protocols that allow ubiquitous communications, cloud-based storage and processing services that offer scale, and access to pools of other inventors via social networks, the individual innovator is making a comeback. The day has come where millions of individual innovators now have the capacity to solve problems more efficiently than their deep-pocketed OR&D counterparts.

So, what are they going to invent? My next post will cover the things that these new innovators must do to take advantage of their new-found bounty.

Portrait of Alexander Graham Bell: Courtesy Smithsonian on Flickr

For the past two years, this blog has discussed a theory that Audience is an Asset that should be carried on a company’s balance sheet as opposed to the commonly held belief that social media should be tracked as P&L. Over time, the theory has been refined through other posts, such as: Valuating Your Social Media Asset, Social Media is a Mutual Fund and Assets Produce Distributions.

Yet, to be blunt, no matter how much I write, lecture, or consult on this concept, most folks still look at me as if I have two heads. “That’s a nice thought, Ron, but what do I tell my boss when asked about ROI?” Unfortunately, I’ve come to understand that as long as social media budgets are controlled by those afflicted with Communications Myopia, the value of investments in social media activities will remain underestimated–that is, right up until some event forces some of those assumptions to be revisited.

This morning, I read about such an event in the New York Times article: A Dispute Over Who Owns a Twitter Account Goes to Court. The article describes how a company (PhoneDog.com) is suing a former employee (Noah Kravitz) for control over the Twitter audience that he built while working for them.

Originally tweeting under the Twitter handle @Phonedog_Noah, Kravitz had successfully built an audience of over 17,000 followers. Since Twitter allows a user to change their handle without jeopardizing that audience, after leaving Phonedog.com, Kravitz changed his handle to @NoahKravitz. Eight months later, Phonedog.com filed a lawsuit against Kravitz, claiming $340,000 in damages [(17,000 followers) x ($2.50/follower/month) x (8 months)].

Phonedog.com released the following statement to the Times:

“The costs and resources invested by PhoneDog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of PhoneDog Media L.L.C. We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.”

In a nutshell, Phonedog.com isn’t suing him for the handle, which has their brand in it, but instead is seeking to “aggressively protect” its assets (property, fans, followers, lists, trademark). Sound familiar?

There’s an old saying that says: “You don’t appreciate what you have ’til it’s gone.” Phonedog.com now has a new appreciation for its social media assets. What about your company? Is it still trying to figure out the ROI of a blog post, tweet, or YouTube video? Or has it come to the conclusion that its investments in social media are compounding into long-term marketable assets?