A year of blogging in the innovation space has taught me a few things:
Blogging is discovery. There are a lot of very bright people out there with many useful insights about how to make innovation happen. I’m impressed with the diversity of views and insights, as well as the constant stream of new thinking. Special recognition and thanks to: Amnon Levav, Yoni Stern, Jacob Goldenberg and the whole team at SIT for teaching me the method for innovating. Fellow bloggers like Jim Todhunter, Paul Sloane, Katy Konrath, Jeffrey Phillips, Keith Sawyer and many others for refreshing ideas about innovation. Chuck Frey for the way he recognizes and inspires others (thanks, Chuck!). Fellow J&J colleagues who push the envelope of innovation like Jeff Murphy, Mike Clem, and Shelly Cropper.
Blogging is hard work. It takes a constant sense of awareness of what’s going on around you to spot new blog ideas. To be a good blogger, you need to be an even better at reading and commenting on other blogs (I learned this and everything else about blogging from Chris Allen). Blogging is a conversation. The long tail will prevail. (Read "The Cluetrain Manifesto" if you don’t believe me). I appreciate those of you who comment on this blog and take a different point-of-view. None of us is as smart as all of us.
Blogging gets you noticed. Be careful what you say because people are paying attention. Readership of this blog is growing steadily, and the media and others are taking note.
The New York Times published a list of "32 Innovations That Will Change Your Tomorrow," an eclectic mix of concepts that range from the wild and wacky like SpeechJammer (#14) to more practical ideas like a blood test for depression (#25).
I analyzed each of the 32 concepts to see which ones could be explained by the five patterns of Systematic Inventive Thinking. These patterns are the "DNA" of products that can be extracted and applied to any product or service to create new-to-the-world innovations. Dr. Jacob Goldenberg found in his research that the majority of successful innovations conform to one or more of these patterns. Conversely, the majority of unsuccessful innovations (those that failed in the marketplace) do not conform to a pattern.