Imitation vs. Innovation
So, at meetings for my group lately, my boss has been hounding us to improve the interface of our site. (Yes, I'm being intentionally vague). One thing he's always asking is 'what does Google do?'. Another guy always comes up with ideas that start 'when Google encounters this, here's what they do'. Now, our site deals with search so it seems to make sense to want to repeat what Google did right, but I don't think that filter is there anymore. The simple fact that Google did it implies that it's good and should be in our product.
This is where I silently disagree. Did Google make it big because they did what Yahoo! or Microsoft did, or did they make it big because they did something extremely well? Imitation may be the highest form of flattery, but I think it would be much better to actually come up with something novel and good. Naturally, extending and improving on something Google has done can be part of that, but that isn't the point. The point is that blindly imitating with no regard to what you're imitating is a rather pedestrian way of trying to make a product. Sure, making something original is tough. Hell, it's really freakin' difficult. However, shouldn't that be an indication of its worth in doing? Surely Messrs. Page and Brin would agree that creating Google was no small feat.
Therefore, I say, take your Google imitation and shove it. If you want to be successful, go do something novel and original. Otherwise, resign yourself to being a hack with fleeting success at best.
Maybe this sounds harsh, but I think you need to ask yourself why you're imitating Google. Is it because Google is fashionable? Surely that can't be a good reason. Fashions change like the winds and you'll spend all your time and energy trying to keep up. Is everything Google does so incredibly perfect that they can do no wrong? I think not. So why? Why not at least try to come up with something novel. It's pathetic the way people follow like lemmings behind everything Google does. It can only come back to bite them in the ass.
Disclaimer: I like Google. This has nothing to do with them, but rather with no talent hacks that imitate them.
Another disclaimer: If you're reading this and you work for Google, feel free to disregard everything I just said. :)
posted by X @ 2:25 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Hmmm.... intentional vagueness.....
I think we wrestle with similar ideas of innovation and imitation at the little filter company.
A key goal in our business is to acquire, and maintain market share. Given the regulatory nature of the biotech business, once you get a product spec'd into a process, it takes a fair amount of work to replace it with a competing filter. It used to be nearly impossible, but the times are changing.
Anyway, that means that we want to be sure to offer every flavor of filter that our competition offers. Just to keep them from getting their foot in the door. If that means dumping a lot of money into making a crazy chemistry, that's fine. As long as customers can choose between blue box and white box branded filters, instead of just the white box.
I half think some of our tech development projects are part of an elaborately Reagan-esque "star wars" scheme to cause our competition to misdirect resources in our perpetual games of cat and mouse. Then I remember the intellectual capabilities of our previous upper management. The current German regieme might be capable of such devious plots, but they seem to be more interested in m&a than subversive r&d.
Anyway... There are still challenges developing techniques and ideas to do the same thing as our competitors. we can't just buy their filters and clone them. In fact, we may have a lot of work to do to catch up with them before we can exceed thier performance. While this may not be innovative to the global market, it certainly challenges status quo of our internal organization.
Would Google still be innovative if we found out that Aliens already have better search technology? The determination of innovation require the acceptance of boundaries. Maybe you and your co-workers are viewing the same situation with different ideas of scope.
Also, how do you feel innovation plays into product upgrades? Especially when you're upgrading the dominant product in teh marketplace. We're just launching the third generation of our popular line of TFF filters, and we already have something like 80% of the market. The G3 will not gain additional market, and will in fact erode G2 sales. It's a substantially better design but is essentially the same filter in a new box. We'll also have less desirable margins on the G3 product for a few years.
Funny this topic should come up. Imitation is the pervasive mentality assumed by my industry. The intellectual property orgy that exists rivals that of the orgies found in pornography. Between any two companies can be found anywhere from 10-15 mutual agreements on "usage" such that royalty payouts between companies more or less does not exist. This can further be translated down to an old fashioned bartering system of information and patented ideas. Companies spend a lot of time innovating imitations of competitive products. The stent graft world that I live in essentially exudes a massive cross-pollination of ideas and designs.
Where does innovation exist in all of this? It hides in the deepest darkest corners and is difficult to nurture and grow into a healthy product or product line. My group that I work in basically does the meat and potatos end of the innovation whereby we are restricted to unique innovation that offers patentability rather than hitching a ride on imitation. So far we have generated 1 patent which has revolutionized the way the medical community looks at stent grafting. Very hard to do and rather rewarding. Like the great filter company of the Northeast, most companies spend more time imitating than innovating with groundbreaking designs and ideas in a coldwar-esque game of "US and Them".
We are a separate entity that exists to solely provide the innovation end and are privately funded to do so. Few companies see the benefit of performing such investive movements. But that is where I am fortunate to see things differently.
Innovation is ripe but overbalanced with a desire to imitate and out-market the valiant foe scrimping and saving to "make it" within the confines of a garage lab. Honestly, innovation is all America will have left if the current market trends continue to send things Eastbound.
Rowr
Post a Comment
<< Home