Transport for NSW is excited to release a Request for Expression of Interest for Quantum Technology Solutions.
Submissions close on Friday 10 December 2021.
For more information please download the Transport for NSW and Quantum Technology (PDF, 5.56 MB) brochure.
To find out more about the project - press the following links
From David N
Curt - i wrote a blog post back in 2008 about this - we go way back with this discussion! It’s actually better than much of what I’ve tried to say here and it links your definition with the narrative definition of innovation - so I’m simply pasting it in here. Perhaps this can be our consensus?
http://blog.innovationjournalism.org/2008/09/speed-of-new-words-as-innovation.html
From Deepa
With comments from Curt
I would place the famous Peter Drucker question, "What is the purpose?", and the "moonshots" that companies identify in this category. These do not have a direct, measurable outcome but a huge impact on creating internal motivation and direction, provided that they are done well (e.g. a Coke within arm's reach of everyone on the planet, etc.)
True but Jobs did not do that—a distraction. The commercial projects were fascinating enough.
In the cases of business leaders like Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. the vision that they articulate also adds value because they can attract great people to work with them,
Yes indeed.
and sometimes buys forgiveness when efforts fall short.
Inside-but not outside.
A good narrative at this stage in my view is about intentions (how we are making the world a better place). It should also give some indication about the means (how we will train/ reward people, expected standards of behavior) for how the given organization will strive to achieve those objectives.
Right.
From the consumers point of view, the relationship often works in reverse. People become interested in your vision and views if they connect emotionally with the product/service after interacting with it. (This is the transformation that Curt described in earlier posts). Many brands create this emotional connection at many different price points - but they do have one thing in common: Successful companies make people feel good about themselves.
Nice. But, for example, GE, or, or — I worked there?
In the book I co-authored, Predictable Magic, we used the Hero's Journey from Joseph Campbell to describe how consumers navigate the marketplace. The Moment of Truth in this construct happens post-purchase when people actually interact and find that their experience meets or exceeds their expectations based on the narrative that has been presented.
Expectations.
In the best cases, people are inspired to do more and become evangelists (app developers, Facebook fans, online reviews).
What makes a narrative compelling is more than the fact that it is novel or has a "worthy" goal. It has to be backed by systems and processes that make it possible to execute and build trust.
Yes—trust.
An analogy would be the fact that in some places democracy is about the right to vote, and on others it spans to include personal freedom and economic opportunity. The outcome of any real innovation effort is uncertain by definition, so codes of conduct are incredibly important (the role of religion, etc is obvious here).
Interesting example. I was once in Singapore at an invited conference of folks like here and a Chinese visiting scholar at Harvard said the main advantage of America was our Judaeo Christian background. That was interesting, why? He said that no system can wrote down all the laws—most of them have to be part of the culture with no need to be explicit.
Non-profits create amazing narratives, common purpose, etc, but often often produce incredibly lackluster results.
True. The narrative is everything.
We also need to look at what the reality any narrative would create for individuals and society at large. There are many narratives that are shared, connect emotionally and are backed by systems that are incredibly destructive (ISIS, Nazi Germany). I think a focus on ethics/ empathy is a necessary criteria as narratives are created (at least a Hippocratic -type Do No Harm condition).
Indeed.
In my experience, I have found that because of new strategic frameworks and Big Data, companies have gotten a lot better at identifying potential opportunities, but still lag in understand consumer mindset/ emotions and connecting with them.
Agree. Very rare.
When there is a significant gap between the story and the reality, the result is not only a failed innovation but a dissolution of trust.
Right.
Many of the best companies today are going after the same stated goals - sustainability, addressing inequality, etc.
I see teams all over the world working on the same stuff with no competitive advantage.
As I remind people during many presentations, people are not waiting anxiously to download mission statements. They are waiting to see and feel something that taps into their aspirations and inspires them. Great narratives bring these aspirations closer to the surface.
Right.
I very often use my father CK Prahalad's tests:
Will is change the conversation?
Does it show the opportunity?
Will it lead to some action?
and most importantly - Who will be better off because of this work?
Sorry to ramble on here. I have probably been way more succinct in two posts that I am sharing here:
https://hbr.org/2011/12/why-trust-matters-more-than-ev/
Thanks
Best
Deepa
From: Curt Carlson
Very nice. Yes—that is my experience too. One of the keys is you need to experience a lot of diverse things from a lot of diverse people — that is the input. Jobs was the master at that. When we sold Siri to him he was the only one who got it. He was calling our CEO 5 times a day. Not a VP, Jobs. He had been doing his homework so as soon as he saw Siri he understood how important it could be for Apple. We called up every other company you could think of and none of their VPs got it. I suspect it is because they don’t have the intense iteration process that was conducted throughout Apple when Jobs was there. Is there someone at Apple still doing that? Vint?
--
Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com
“Our most important innovation is the way we work."
From: Esko Kilpi
Subject: Re: [i4j2015] i4j2015: Innovation and Narriative
An interesting read:
Steve Jobs: "Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty, because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things.”
http://www.wired.com/2014/02/ideas-flow/
Best wishes,
Esko
Curt wrote
David, thanks. Here is what I am trying to sort out. The “narrative” that customers see is a fraction (but critical) of the total “narrative” that needs to be created to develop a sustainable product (for as least awhile). Indeed, there is not a single person who gets the "entire narrative” (e.g., the iPhone team) and it is not required. And narrative by itself is not value. Your definition puts many concepts into one bucket and that doesn’t help me to create new innovations. Your emphasis on the narrative, as I understand it, does help: it is essential and for many products (Nike) it is close to their entire value proposition. Maybe this is clear to everyone else.
The "narrative of innovation" resonates with me. There is no such thing today that is simple, correct, and that people can hold in their heads. One example I posted on my website is the so called Valley of Death. That is completely the wrong narrative!
--
Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
“Our most important innovation is the way we work."
From: David Nordfors: Innovation and Narriative
HI Curt - good points
--------------------
It should be fruitful to talk more about the humane part of innovation.
Great.
Every innovation needs a name, so that we can refer to it, and a narrative so that we can relate to it. Otherwise it can’t exist. So it’s pure logics that innovation is the introduction of new shared language. There is nothing to argue about that.
In most cases it takes much more than a new narrative.
"The creation of surprising new knowledge and narratives that have sustaining value for society”
I agree.
In MOST CASES innovation is more than an introduction of narrative: New elements of Technology, Business etc.
That said, an innovation is ALWAYS the introduction of new shared language.
I agree with you Curt that innovation is ALWAYS the creation of new value.
That said, the value is established by the narrative.
Example: The value of the Huula Hoop is determined by being a plastic ring you wiggle around parts of your body for entertainment. If the Huula Hoop narrative would have been “Save drowning people by throwing the plastic ring to them” it would have been pretty worthless.
The question is: At this point in time - what is the most value-creating way of understanding innovation?
My point of view: In the 80s, creating the new technology was the bottle-neck. So people concluded that if they could create technology better and faster, then that would lead to more innovation.
It does
Indeed
This meant people could use innovation and technology as synonyms and it wouldn’t make much different in the discussion about the economy. Then, in the 90s, people started to say that ‘we make a lot of technology that never gets out of the lab. Innovation is about business, too!”. So business was being increasingly seen as the bottle-neck for innovation. So in people’s minds, the essence of innovation started to slide from tech to business.
Well maybe. It has always been about both. People are just not good at the value creation part of the process. That is still true (I recently wrote a post about this). Creating the narrative is one part of the process — needs, solution, competition, business model, narrative, production, sales; needs, solution, competition, etc. (repeat and repeat and repeat until done).
Perhaps it’s constructive to talk about “the narrative of innovation”
Back in the 80s and well into the 90s we spoke about “technology policy”
Now it’s more “innovation policy” and it includes business.
I think people will NOT call it “Narrative policy”, but the role of narrative will increase in innovation policy.
Now it’s beginning to go so fast to develop both technology and business infrastructure, we are less limited by that.
Depends on the area. AI is hard, energy is hard, medicine is hard, cyber is hard, robotics is hard, etc.
Yes. I generalized in order to make the point. ;)
People can develop a mind-blowing technology in no time and a single person can start a company with global supply chain, marketing and sales overnight!
Sometimes the second part is true.
Now the primary problem for innovators is to build their story so that people will buy into it and want to be part of it.
That is not what I see. It is developing the product and the business model for products, and yes there is new knowledge and a narrative around that.
Curt - NABC / Business plan is a narrative.
But I agree with you.
I generalized, again - to make the point ;)
That goes for the development team - nowadays they are often a multidisciplinary team and it’s difficult for them to get over the internal language barriers.
That is certainly true — most don’t try that hard or know what to do.
It goes for the market and the customers - you need to catch their attention to start with, and then co-opt them. Introducing new narrative is the bottle neck now.
For some markets (e.g., social media) more than others.
That’s why it’s relevant to see innovation as the introduction of new narrative.
Again, to me it is one of the things you have to do. It is not just any-old-narrative when you are developing a product or something that will be sustainable.
Again - I agree it’s several things. I agree that there are several useful ways to see innovation.
Still, the user scenario /NABC is what I see as the difference between ‘tech’ and ‘innovation'
My Innovation Journalism Fellowship program at Stanford was about that. It targeted journalism is a stakeholder in the innovation ecosystem.
Good.
Their mandate is from the audience/citizens - which makes them an important player for democratic innovation economy.
True.
In a functional innovation system, journalism will interact with other industries, universities and the public sector to expand journalism’s ability to explain how innovation happens, while maintaining journalistic principles. According to these principles, journalism is loyal to the citizens.
That would be an improvement. VERY few MSM folks have any real understanding of value creation and innovation.
True
By empowering citizens in matters of innovation, journalism enables societies to develop innovation economies. Accordingly, this chapter offers:
All great topics.
Allons!
--------------------
David Nordfors, Ph.D.
CEO, IIIJ
TRUST = Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy
Self-orientation
T is trust —how much the parties trust each other
C is credibility—has the party been referred to buy a credible source? does he/she make sense? have they done something similar before? Have they got what it takes robe part of the team? Have they the knowledge, education, experience and credentials that you can trust ? Are you authentic ?
Example
you go see a doctor and he prescribes you a green pill with yellow dots and costs a fortune because it will make you feel better .... If he has a good reputation, the relevant qualifications and has been referred by someone you know like and trust - his credibility factor will be high - as a patient , the likelihood up you buying and taking that pill is good.
If you are in a foreign country, and you see a "doctor" on the pavement in a dark alley, dark glasses offering the same pill - you will think twice about taking it!!
The higher the credibility factor - the higher the trust factor
R is reliability—have you built a reputation of reliability? Are you consistent ? Are your words and actions aligned ?
Have you got a reputation of someone with a strong integrity? Are you someone who can follow through? Do you under promise and over deliver? Have you been part of an innovative team before? If you have failed many times- that's ok - have you learnt from that experience?
Example
If you have a golf partner that continually doesn't come on time for tee off and is unreliable - can you trust him to be there next week - or are you going to continually have angst whether he will be there next time - his reliability is low - his trust factor will be low .
I is intimacy—how secure or safe are you perceived by your team ? Are you honest? How well do you know them ? Can they trust you to tell you their inner most secrets, ideas , bfo's (blinding flashes of the obvious!) . The higher the intimacy - the higher the trust factor. You know the strengths and weaknesses of that person or team - and you know the value that they can bring! You have done it before with them!
S is Self in the denominator is Real interesting .
it’s about the selfishness factor
Are we focussed on what we get out of the relationship for ourselves , or what we can contribute for the benefit of the project or person?
What is the perception?
If we focus on the other person or project , paying attention to whatever it is that helps them succeed, this will build trust and be a strong base for a strong relationships based on trust.
High C and R and I builds trust:
High S destroys trust
Capability and Reliability are largely quantifiable - calculated from the head
Intimacy and self orientation is largely based on gut, instinct, chemistry and perception - calculated from the heart - "can I collaborate with you , work with and be frank with you or are you in it for yourself without regard for me.
Do I have a sense that the person cares about me"
Innovation thrives on teams working together and developing strong relationships with each other. They are not built on one off transactions - they are built on long term commitments for the benefit of each other and for those around them.
At the heart of this relationship is trust .
