18. Invention
In
the preceding item I claimed that exploration should feed on experience from
exploitation. The wider question, beyond the present scope of innovation, is:
How
does pragmatism work? How do ideas arise and change, from action? In an earlier
work Learning and innovation in organizations and economies (2000), I
proposed a ‘cycle of discovery’. The basic idea, which accords perfectly with
pragmatism, is that knowledge develops by applying existing knowledge to new
areas. That yields challenges and insights for change.
In a
nutshell, the cycle is as follows. In generalization an existing mental
scheme or practice is applied to novel contexts. Generalization is needed for
four reasons. First, to escape from the existing order in the present area of
practice, which presses for conformity. Think of existing ways of thought,
technical and legal standards, distribution channels, consumer practices,
worker skills, and forms of organization.
Second,
generalization is needed to obtain fresh insights into the limitations of
existing practice, which has been moulded to what is required in present
conditions, or has itself moulded those conditions.
Third,
generalization is needed to create pressure for change for the sake of
survival. Often novelty does not arise unless needed for survival. Fourth, it
is needed to obtain insight into alternatives, encountered in novel contexts of
application.
Generalization
can be real, as in a new market for an existing product, a new field of
application of a technology, or virtual, as in a computer simulation,
laboratory experiment, or a thought experiment.
To
survive in the new conditions the scheme is differentiated in an attempt
to deal with them. For this one taps from existing repertoires of possibilities
and capabilities learned from previous experience. If that does not yield
survival, one tries to adopt elements of local practices that appear to be
successful where one’s own practice fails, in reciprocation.
This
yields hybrids that allow experimentation with novel elements to explore their
potential, while maintaining the basic logic or design principles of the old
practice. One next obtains insight into the obstacles from the old architecture
that prevent the full utilization of the potential that novel elements have now
shown. This yields indications for more fundamental changes in the
architecture, in accommodation.
Next,
the new architecture, with old and new elements, is still tentative, requiring
much experimentation and subsidiary changes, and elimination of redundancies
and inappropriate leftovers from old practice, in a process of consolidation.
There is often competition between alternative designs, which mostly results in
a dominant design. And next, to get away from that one again needs generalization,
and the circle is closed.
One
illustration is the following. Before in the car direction indicators with
flashing lights were invented, waving a hand indicated direction, as on a bike.
From signs at railways one learned that it could be done better with a
mechanical hand, without needing an open top or window. In fact, those
indicators at first did have the stylised shape of a little hand. The
mechanical hand has all the disadvantages of moving parts: in getting stuck,
breakage, stalling, rusting, and maintenance. But when also electrical light
was inserted the leap was made to using a flashing light instead of moving
parts. To distinguish it from basic lighting it had to flash.
Another
illustration is that when in the construction of bridges the move was made from
wood to iron, use was at first still made of ‘swallow tail’ connections that
make sense for wood but not for iron, which can be welded.
No comments:
Post a Comment