MYTHS OF INNOVATION:

What can we learn from history?

Dr. Janne M. Korhonen, LUT & TSE

jmkorhonen.fi

janne@jmkorhonen.fi�Twitter: @jmkorhonen

​

This presentation is free to distribute for non-commercial purposes.

Creative Commons license: CC BY-SA.

AGENDA

• Why study history?
• What is technology?
• Technological transitions take time
• How innovation happens?
• What is the mother of inventors?
• Technology is shaped socially

WHY STUDY HISTORY?

Guess the year!

“Recent research suggests that a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward [renewable] technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic.”

“Recent research suggests that a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward [renewable] technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic.”

Lovins, A. (1976). Energy strategy: the road not taken. Foreign Affairs, (55), 65–96.

Electrical Engineer, October 1916

Electrical Engineer, October 1916

Daily Mail, Feb 3, 1910

Cembalest, M. (2016): Eye on the market. J.P. Morgan

Image source unknown - please let me know if you have any idea!

1960s: numerous projections of “too cheap to meter” atomic energy

​

Oil believed obsolete by 2000

​

1968 study for Satakunta region (Finland): the energy question for 1990s would be whether to build one or two nuclear power plants for all the region’s energy

On the other hand…

IMPACT OF MASS PRODUCTION

• We don’t learn from history
• Things could have gone differently

What is technology?

INNOVATION IS NOT TECHNOLOGY

German army, World War II

Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-218-0504-36 / Dieck / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Wikimedia

Hans Karner, Wikimedia

INNOVATION IS NOT TECHNOLOGY

• Innovation vs. use

​

​

INNOVATION IS NOT TECHNOLOGY

• Innovation vs. use
• Most “histories of technology” are in fact histories of innovation: names and dates on patents

​

​

INNOVATION IS NOT TECHNOLOGY

• Innovation vs. use
• Most “histories of technology” are in fact histories of innovation: names and dates on patents
• But our societies are defined by technologies we use

​

​

INNOVATION IS NOT TECHNOLOGY

• Innovation vs. use
• Most “histories of technology” are in fact histories of innovation: names and dates on patents
• But our societies are defined by technologies we use
• Technology ≠ technological change ≠ invention ≠ innovation

​

​

TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSITIONS

TAKE TIME

CHANGE IS WHEN THINGS HAPPEN

• Greatest impact of new technologies comes when they are actually taken into use

​

CHANGE IS WHEN THINGS HAPPEN

• Greatest impact of new technologies comes when they are actually taken into use
• This is usually long after they’ve been invented (10-20 years is typical)

​

CHANGE IS WHEN THINGS HAPPEN

• Greatest impact of new technologies comes when they are actually taken into use
• This is usually long after they’ve been invented (10-20 years is typical)
• RED QUEEN RACE: “you must run very fast to stay where you are”

​

CHANGE IS WHEN THINGS HAPPEN

• Greatest impact of new technologies comes when they are actually taken into use
• This is usually long after they’ve been invented (10-20 years is typical)
• RED QUEEN RACE: “you must run very fast to stay where you are”
• Remember that technologies develop even if you aren’t looking!

CHANGE IS WHEN THINGS HAPPEN

• Greatest impact of new technologies comes when they are actually taken into use
• This is usually long after they’ve been invented (10-20 years is typical)
• RED QUEEN RACE: “you must run very fast to stay where you are”
• Remember that technologies develop even if you aren’t looking!
• The competition evolves as well, but incremental innovations are rarely newsworthy!

​

CHANGE IS WHEN THINGS HAPPEN

• Greatest impact of new technologies comes when they are actually taken into use
• This is usually long after they’ve been invented (10-20 years is typical)
• RED QUEEN RACE: “you must run very fast to stay where you are”
• Remember that technologies develop even if you aren’t looking!
• The competition evolves as well, but incremental innovations are rarely newsworthy!

In 1968, Finnish energy supply was still dependent on horses...

​

What, then, is technology?

NOT JUST ARTEFACTS!

Trollbackco, Wikimedia

TECHNOLOGY IS…

Knowledge?

Tools?

Processes?

Efficient means?

Artifacts?

TECHNOLOGY IS…

1. a means to fulfill a human purpose: either explicit, or hazy, multiple , and changing. As a means, a technology may be a method or process or device; simple or complex; material or nonmaterial.

​

​

TECHNOLOGY IS…

1. a means to fulfill a human purpose: either explicit, or hazy, multiple , and changing. As a means, a technology may be a method or process or device; simple or complex; material or nonmaterial.

2. an assemblage of practices and components. This covers technologies such as electronics or biotechnology that are collections or toolboxes of individual technologies and practices. (Strictly speaking, “bodies of technology”)

​

​

TECHNOLOGY IS…

1. a means to fulfill a human purpose: either explicit, or hazy, multiple , and changing. As a means, a technology may be a method or process or device; simple or complex; material or nonmaterial.

2. an assemblage of practices and components. This covers technologies such as electronics or biotechnology that are collections or toolboxes of individual technologies and practices. (Strictly speaking, “bodies of technology”)

3. the entire collection of devices and engineering practices available to a culture.

​

(Arthur 2009:28)

​

TECHNOLOGY IS…

1. a means to fulfill a human purpose: either explicit, or hazy, multiple , and changing. As a means, a technology may be a method or process or device; simple or complex; material or nonmaterial.

2. an assemblage of practices and components. This covers technologies such as electronics or biotechnology that are collections or toolboxes of individual technologies and practices. (Strictly speaking, “bodies of technology”)

3. the entire collection of devices and engineering practices available to a culture.

​

(Arthur 2009:28)

​

TECHNOLOGY IS…

​

​

“The ensemble of artifacts intended to function as relatively efficient means.”

​

Willoughby (2005)

​

​

OR...

​

“Things humans build and manufacture, and processes and know-how required”

Korhonen, today

DOES IT MATTER WHAT TECHNOLOGY IS?

DOES IT MATTER WHAT TECHNOLOGY IS?

​

Technology as a language and in language:

symbolic communication

​

Wikipedia, user Cryonic7

DOES IT MATTER WHAT TECHNOLOGY IS?

​

Technology as a language and in language:

symbolic communication

If we believe “technology develops”, then what do we develop?

Who develops technology?

HOW INNOVATION HAPPENS?

“radically novel innovation”

“radically novel innovation”

“a giant leap”

“radically novel innovation”

“a giant leap”

“massive breakthrough”

Was this a radical innovation?

TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMBINATIONS

• By definition, every technology must be realised by combining available components

​

​

TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMBINATIONS

• By definition, every technology must be realised by combining available components
• If components are not available, technology cannot be realised

​

​

TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMBINATIONS

• By definition, every technology must be realised by combining available components
• If components are not available, technology cannot be realised
• There are both physical and mental components: parts and knowledge

​

​

TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMBINATIONS

• By definition, every technology must be realised by combining available components
• If components are not available, technology cannot be realised
• There are both physical and mental components: parts and knowledge
• New technologies become new building blocks for further advances

​

​

TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMBINATIONS

• By definition, every technology must be realised by combining available components
• If components are not available, technology cannot be realised
• There are both physical and mental components: parts and knowledge
• New technologies become new building blocks for further advances
• However: are there infinitely many combinations?

​

See Arthur (2009), Kasmire et al. (2012)

PERPETUAL GROWTH?

• The idea that economic growth can continue in perpetuity rests on the assumption that there is a Vast amount of recombinations
• “Better cakes from the same ingredients”
• Is this realistic?
• Some growth probably feasible, but...

PERPETUAL GROWTH?

• The idea that economic growth can continue in perpetuity rests on the assumption that there is a Vast amount of recombinations
• “Better cakes from the same ingredients”
• Is this realistic?
• Some growth probably feasible, but...

?

WHY SIMULTANEOUS INNOVATION?

• Usually, new components and new knowledge become available to many people almost simultaneously

​

WHY SIMULTANEOUS INNOVATION?

• Usually, new components and new knowledge become available to many people almost simultaneously
• Furthermore, the problems new innovations try to solve are usually universal (if a problem is not widespread, there probably wouldn’t be demand for innovation)

​

WHY SIMULTANEOUS INNOVATION?

• Usually, new components and new knowledge become available to many people almost simultaneously
• Furthermore, the problems new innovations try to solve are usually universal (if a problem is not widespread, there probably wouldn’t be demand for innovation)
• I.e. changes in demand and supply affect multiple persons simultaneously

​

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

• Is there such a thing as radical innovation?

​

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

• Is there such a thing as radical innovation?
• What do observed incrementality and simultaneity imply for common beliefs about innovation, e.g. “think outside the box” or “young people are the best innovators?”

​

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

• Is there such a thing as radical innovation?
• What do observed incrementality and simultaneity imply for common beliefs about innovation, e.g. “think outside the box” or “young people are the best innovators?”
• Do we overemphasize the role of radical innovation, and underemphasize incremental?

​

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

• Is there such a thing as radical innovation?
• What do observed incrementality and simultaneity imply for common beliefs about innovation, e.g. “think outside the box” or “young people are the best innovators?”
• Do we overemphasize the role of radical innovation, and underemphasize incremental?
• What is the value of idea compared to value of execution?

VERY IMPORTANT OBSERVATION:

ALL TECHNOLOGIES EVOLVE CONTINUOUSLY, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HEAR ABOUT IT

WHAT IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTORS?

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE TO INVENT?

DEMAND PULL

TECHNOLOGY PUSH

Both explanations unsatisfactory (Nemet 2009)

More realistic explanation:

People just like to invent new things?

OPPORTUNITY CREATES INVENTORS

• Trying to decisively solve which factors influence innovation at any given time is futile

​

OPPORTUNITY CREATES INVENTORS

• Trying to decisively solve which factors influence innovation at any given time is futile
• Trying to pin down innovation as a result of some single factor is foolish

​

OPPORTUNITY CREATES INVENTORS

• Trying to decisively solve which factors influence innovation at any given time is futile
• Trying to pin down innovation as a result of some single factor is foolish
• There needs to be a suitable environment with enough possibilities for innovation to occur

​

OPPORTUNITY CREATES INVENTORS

• Trying to decisively solve which factors influence innovation at any given time is futile
• Trying to pin down innovation as a result of some single factor is foolish
• There needs to be a suitable environment with enough possibilities for innovation to occur
• Demand incentives can help but demand alone does not bring about innovations: otherwise we would have cheap batteries and anti-gravity by now

OPPORTUNITY CREATES INVENTORS

• Trying to decisively solve which factors influence innovation at any given time is futile
• Trying to pin down innovation as a result of some single factor is foolish
• There needs to be a suitable environment with enough possibilities for innovation to occur
• Demand incentives can help but demand alone does not bring about innovations: otherwise we would have cheap batteries and anti-gravity by now
• We don’t have the components for either

​

OPPORTUNITY CREATES INVENTORS

• Trying to decisively solve which factors influence innovation at any given time is futile
• Trying to pin down innovation as a result of some single factor is foolish
• There needs to be a suitable environment with enough possibilities for innovation to occur
• Demand incentives can help but demand alone does not bring about innovations: otherwise we would have cheap batteries and anti-gravity by now
• We don’t have the components for either
• “Fortune favors the prepared mind” (Louis Pasteur)

INVENTION IS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

TECHNOLOGY IS SOCIALLY SHAPED

TECHNOLOGY AND POWER RELATIONS:

“Technology is neither good nor bad,

nor is it neutral”

RESISTANCE TO TECHNOLOGY

• Largely a function of perceived impact to power relations

​

RESISTANCE TO TECHNOLOGY

• Largely a function of perceived impact to power relations
• Those who would lose power tend to oppose new technology, those who 1) gain power or 2) do not lose power but gain something else tend to support it

​

RESISTANCE TO TECHNOLOGY

• Largely a function of perceived impact to power relations
• Those who would lose power tend to oppose new technology, those who 1) gain power or 2) do not lose power but gain something else tend to support it
• If those who gain from new technology can ally with those in power -> technology is adopted

​

RESISTANCE TO TECHNOLOGY

• Largely a function of perceived impact to power relations
• Those who would lose power tend to oppose new technology, those who 1) gain power or 2) do not lose power but gain something else tend to support it
• If those who gain from new technology can ally with those in power -> technology is adopted
• Multiple examples: spinning looms, factories, mass manufacturing…

​

RESISTANCE TO TECHNOLOGY

• Largely a function of perceived impact to power relations
• Those who would lose power tend to oppose new technology, those who 1) gain power or 2) do not lose power but gain something else tend to support it
• If those who gain from new technology can ally with those in power -> technology is adopted
• Multiple examples: spinning looms, factories, mass manufacturing…
• LUDDITES WERE RATIONAL

​

See e.g. Frey (2019), The Technology Trap

SUMMARY

WHAT DID WE LEARN?

• History shows multiple futures are possible, and predictions can fail
• Technology is not limited to physical artifacts
• Technology: means to a human purpose
• All technologies are combinations of components
• All innovation is incremental
• There are no simple explanations for what drives innovation
• Technology ≠ technological change ≠ invention ≠ innovation
• Technological change takes time!
• ...and is shaped by the society.

REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

Arthur, B. W. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.

​

Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

​

Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

​

Edgerton, D. (2006). The Shock of the Old. Technology and Global History since 1900. New York and

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

​

Frey, C. B. (2019). The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor and Power in the Age of Automation.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

​

Kasmire, J., Korhonen, J. M., & Nikolic, I. (2012). How Radical is a Radical Innovation? An Outline for a Computational Approach. Energy Procedia, 20, 346–353.

​

Lovins, A. (1976). Energy strategy: the road not taken. Foreign Affairs, (55), 65–96.

​

MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd Ed. London: Open University Press.

​

Malm, A. (2015) Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam-Power and the roots of Global Warming. London: Verso.

​

Nemet, G. F. (2009). Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Research Policy, 38, 700–709.

​

Willoughby, K. W. (2005). Technological semantics and technological practice: Lessons from an enigmatic episode in twentieth-century technology studies. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 17(3–4), 11–43.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​