Relevance paradox
The relevance paradox describes an attempt to gather information relevant to a decision, which fails because the elimination of information perceived as distracting or unnecessary and thus detrimental to making an optimal decision, can also inadvertently exclude information that is actually crucial.[1] Definition[edit] In many cases in which action or decision is required, it is obvious what information relevant to the matter at hand may be lacking: a military attack may not have maps so reconnaissance is undertaken, an engineering project may not have ground condition details, and these will be ascertained, a public health program will require a survey of which illnesses are prevalent, and so on. However, in many significant instances across a wide range of areas, even when relevant information is readily available, the decision makers are not aware of its relevance because they lack the information which would make its relevance clear. Examples[edit] Avoidance[edit] See also[edit]
Breaking the Mold: An Educational Perspective on Diffusion of Innovation/Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations
By Ritushree Chatterjee When discussing Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations, many have wondered how Roger’s model would apply in today’s information age. What relevance does the Diffusion of Innovation model have in today’s information age? The information age is signified by the instant access to information, more stress on self-reliance, not bound by any geographic boundaries. Do we still have a strong sense of belonging to a community, the origin of the Diffusion of Innovation? Are we bothered by sanctions by the community? Innovation and adoption have become mundane words in our fast paced technologically savvy lives. Diffusion[edit] Rogers (Rogers, 2005, p. 5) defines diffusion as "the process in which an innovation is communicated though certain channels over time among the members of a social system." Four Elements of Diffusion of Innovation[edit] Innovation[edit] What is innovation? Communication Channels[edit] Time[edit] Time is an important factor in studying diffusion research.
Waves of Innovation
SOURCE: The Economist, 20 Feb 1999.Kondratiev Waves, as Postulated by Joseph Schumpeter. Innovation is a serious matter. It is the key to American prosperity, security, better jobs, and better health, as well as responses to coming challenges like energy security and global warming. But it’s not as simple as the president’s State of the Union address, or his Strategy for American Innovation would suggest, according to a recent study of economic history. In As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution, a seminal work in cliometrics—the study of economic history—Chris Freeman and Francisco Louçã use historical data on technological advances, economic structure, salaries, and political unrest to derive a clear pattern linking innovation to the performance of the economy. Cliometrics was founded in 1960 as a response to the simplistic models of neoclassical economics. Let’s use the familiar example of steam power. The next Kondratiev wave?
The 16% Rule: The Secret to Accelerating Diffusion of Innovation (Presentation Slides) | INNOVATE OR DIE
Over the last few months I have had the pleasure of presenting The 16% Rule, my theory on accelerating diffusion of innovation, at the 2011 ADMA Forum and at The Customer Show, Sydney. Thanks to everyone who came along to see me present, it is always an honour to speak in front of a full house. And an extra special thank you for the kind ratings. I’ve been informed that The 16% Rule was rated among the top 5 presentations at ADMA Forum, and was a “crowd favourite” at The Customer Show. I have now loaded up my presentation slides to SlideShare (below) for your reference. Please feel free to comment or contact me if you have any questions about The 16% Rule. The Secret to Accelerating Diffusion of Innovation: The 16% Rule Explained | INNOVATE OR DIE (innovateordie.com.au) Like this: Like Loading...
"Rogers' diffusion theory in education: The implementation and sustain" by Vernon F Fisher
Vernon F Fisher, University of Nebraska - Lincoln Abstract This qualitative case study examined how teachers implement and sustain innovations introduced through staff development programs. Subject Area Education, Administration|Education, Teacher Training|Education, Curriculum and Instruction Recommended Citation Vernon F Fisher, "Rogers' diffusion theory in education: The implementation and sustained use of innovations introduced during staff development" (January 1, 2005).
Remember the Future - Innovation Games
Goal: Understand Your Customers’ Definition of Success “What should our product do?” Ah, yes, the seemingly open-ended question that many times isn’t that open-ended at all. Most of the time, what your product should do is some reasonable extrapolation of what it has done in the past. Your cell phone should have better signal strength, longer batter life, and be lighter. So should your laptop. Hand each of your customers a few pieces of paper. Note: The phrasing of the question is extremely important. This game is based on numerous studies in cognitive psychology that have examined how we think about the future. This approach has other important benefits. Quova: Innovation Games for Sales Training
Influence the Psychology of Persuasion Book Summary
From creation myth to the reality of innovation today
On the surface, Malcolm Gladwell’s latest article for The New Yorker, “Creation Myth: Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation“, is a story about the mouse and how inventions travel – and evolve – across time and place. But examined more deeply, the article is really about the factors that determine whether you end up with an invention or an innovation. Simply put: “invention” is the manifestation of an idea or creation of something new. It doesn’t become an “innovation” until it’s applied successfully in practice – i.e., it reaches the market and impacts people’s lives. The story of PARC – and for that matter, any other innovative company – is indeed a mix of hopeful inventions, world-changing innovations, and missed opportunities, as Gladwell observes. On the challenges of invention and innovation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A note on the popular story of the mouse Speaking of the “expert mind”… There’s a nuance that’s often forgotten in popular retellings of the story of the mouse.
Instinctual Innovation versus Intellectual Innovation
One of the best Twitter names that I’ve come across in the past few years is @ShowerThinker – almost as cool as mine – @innovate. It’s an account for an inventor that makes post-it notes for the shower called Aqua Notes. This Twitter name captures a well-understood fact – that a lot of great ideas (and ultimately innovations) come to us not from brainstorming, but from the connection to our subconscious that occurs in the shower (or pretty much anywhere else in the bathroom). If so many great ideas come to us when our active mind is elsewhere, then why is such little attention paid to this source of innovation. A lot has been written about creativity and the brain, left brain vs. right brain thinking, and how often the brain just needs to get out of its own way for creativity to occur as there is no single creative area of the brain. Intellectual Innovation begins with active efforts to capture and develop ideas using techniques such as brainstorming, greenhousing, etc. What do you think?
