Transposition of Evolution into Innovation

Innovation as a pattern of Evolution: math used Linear algebra matrix transform:

The word ‘Innovation’ is often thrown around like B school bingo — ‘curate’, ‘synergy’, ‘disruptive’. The overuse of a word often renders it absolute so we innovate on language- ‘Ah innovative but are you disruptive??’. The business world seems rife with theories on innovation- from the open office fad to the pool table at work, where is innovation bred and what does it mean? Someone tells us our GDP depends on it- so perhaps in the time of COVID-19, as our governments look to a new strategy for economic recovery lets have a close look at what innovation really is and what value it brings to our economy.

Now before you go further, be warned, this is not a click bate article. Frankly click bate is the clear indication of how we have innovated ourselves out of the environments that foster innovation. This is a long form essay, the kind you wrote in yester-year when some professor would force you to write 10,000 words on a topic. I shall attempt to inject some humor into this, making the excruciating task of reading easier. Should you not find my jokes funny, let us agree to disagree on the definition of humor and its impact on science.

The motivation for this essay comes from my own research and study around the process of innovation. Upon careful research I found that most things people develop have proxies in the natural world, from energy generation to organizational design. In fact it would almost be easier to study the natural world and try and create technology that mimics it. Unless of course nature has patented energy conversion. (I said I would add humor).

While our own understanding of innovation, as a stand alone topic, matures there is great value in considering how this process can be seen in nature. Most processes in nature are optimized to ensure survival. They provide tremendous value in understanding how things change and respond to their environment with the fundamental object to exist- to optimize the probability of the continuation of life. To evolve. It is here that the first overlaps can be seen between the process of evolution and the process of innovation. But to understand innovation through the lenses of evolution we must understand them both a bit better.

There are two main categories of how life evolves, the first being heredity and the second being variation. Heredity is effectively a process through which traits that are favorable for survival are passed down a species. Each species passes on traits that are encoded genetically to the next. Variation of traits is vital within a species as it gives the greatest chance of survival, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions. Genetic variation can be introduced though processes where genes interact with each other in unique combinations to create variations. The larger the genetic diversity the greater likelihood of variation, the higher probability of a species surviving. Aside from traits that are passed down through hereditary mechanisms another fascinating way in which genetic variation is introduced into a species is mutation.

Similar to evolution, innovation can be categorized into two broad areas- the first being incremental innovation the second being effectively akin to mutation. Mutation does not have a presumptive reason to happen, however if it has the right ecosystem and conditions to grow it propagates through a species. Mutations are not directional, they merely happen. I mean, I might be waiting on my mutation to be able to read minds to surface but it seems my superpowers are taking their sweet time. Rather you are probably more familiar with mutations like cancer, or cystic fibrosis. Mutations do not need to serve an survival imperative. Any more than technology does. Similarly innovation is often not really directive, the first computer was mechanical developed in the 1800s- same with the first contact lenses, the first car design was also electric. But, despite their genius and utility, they did not have an ecosystem that supported them. Thus, many of these technologies emerged a second time with a greater probability of diffusion in the last few decades.

Modern innovation theory also fails to provide us with any usable mechanism to contend with innovation in established industries. Case in point, issues like climate change. The most cited work to understand innovation in established ecosystems comes from Clayton Cristensen’s Innovators Dilemma. Here he aptly identifies the constraints faced by established players to innovate in their markets, effectively illustrating how the same mutation inside a company can fail without a sustaining ecosystem while it can thrive if it occurs outside the entity. However, Cristensen’s theories do not provide a view of how technology adoption can happen in established industries. In fact most modern innovation theory does not deal with innovation and technology adoption in established industries- choosing rather the plush theorizing of the blue ocean of blue ocean strategies.

One reason why modern innovation theory does not deal with established industries may be — quite simply, its messy because you have to account for the government and kind of boring- read your favorite Electricity Act recently? Luckily boring is just where the author finds her best thinking is done. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, in my personal quest for the title of Captain Planet, this is the area of study that needs to be undertaken if one is to achieve any advancement in climate goals. The most cited and groundbreaking work on the governments role in innovation comes from Mariana Mazzucato- who intricately weaves a wonderfully cluttered picture of how your smart phone was actually developed by the government. If you thought spaghetti could get tangled wait till you learn about how disjointed the world of “government” is.

Most innovation comes from the private sector or public sector point of view, but an ecosystem perspective has to be taken when considering most industries where amazing technical advances go un-adopted. Often these failures are not due to lack of demand or value creation, but rather market eccentricities that are not accounted for. What in fact is the reason that one cannot actually sell electricity to ones neighbor, or why cant I sell perfectly effective fertilizer that comes from treating human waste? And here I present to you the most popular punch against the most popular punching bag- The GOVERNMENT (punching bag) needs to change the REGULATION (punch). Thank you for the hammer- but I actually need to dig a ditch. The tools are not appropriate for the job that needs to be done.

Since we find ourselves abandoned by modern theories on how to weave a path out of this maize, let us see how evolution would help us out. As life evolves, it evolves with evolutionary constraints. Biology is not exactly the most efficient way to design things- it is the most efficient way to design things depending on where they came from. Lets take the humble ability of a human to make vocal sounds- a marvel. You see our larynx is connected to our brain through a nerve- that nerve did not pick a very efficient way to connect. It comes from our brain, wraps around the heart and then goes up the neck into the larynx. A bit of a detour to be sure, but not one that would crap the style of someone as talented as Hawkeye (who knew he could sing!). The same nerve takes the same path in another animal- the Giraffe. Have you seen that neck? While it makes more sense to rewire the nerve more directly to the larynx, the path is effectively an evolutionary constraint.

Similarly, regulations form a type of evolutionary constraint in how we have designed our industries. The inherent function of a regulation is to prevent harm. An industry that is emerging, such as social media, is often unregulated because its ability and mechanism of harm is not evident. However once a couple elections are shown to be susceptible to social media’s power, one begins to hear talk of regulation. Other industries like aviation have the potential to impact many lives if left unchecked, thus these industries are both heavily regulated and rarely innovated in. Regulation is a type of evolutionary constraint. Resigning ourselves to lay the blame for progress on regulatory change is effectively like giving someone a hammer to dig a ditch. It is the wrong tool for the job.

The focus and need to study innovation theory and more importantly, innovation pathways in established industries isn’t a mere academic exercise. Rather it comes from the need to modernize established sectors and formulate a more informed pathway to understand how to integrate technologies in these sectors to achieve key end goals. These range from Climate Change goals to ensuring democratic systems continue to achieve the intent of their initial establishment. There seems to be an idolism associated with innovation and entrepreneurship that values the “break stuff fast” model of disruption. While it sounds exciting to mad max our way into the future, the idea that we will break our way to achieving carbon reduction goals, or ensuring institutions like journalism and free speech are maintained is like treating a patient without doing any exams or fully understanding the impact of the medicine. Oh wait- haven’t we had an opioid epidemic already. I am sorry to burst the bubble, but the answer to most of our problems is a combination of two stepping and slow methodical analysis. That’s right, slow slow- quick quick.

The natural unfolding of evolution, provides us with effectively a cheat sheet for how our own attempts to change and impact the world around us may be successful or may be hindered. Natural stratifications in human systems, be they geographical, economic or values based mimic how genetical diversity and stratification in natural systems may impact evolution. While a mutation may not have the right ecosystem in which to grow in one system it may thrive in another- similarly just because one economy doesn’t support the need for a technology that specialized in making disposable plates from newspapers doesn’t mean another economy would not.

As start-ups and innovation ecosystems in countries outside of North America and Europe begin to gain popularity, looking to evolution to understand how these systems will evolve is vital and gives us a glimpse in how other locations may adapt. Where natural environments that are warm and welcoming to life serve to be rich ecosystems of natural diversity, such as the Amazon, Asian ecosystems provide a unique diversification of ideas that can be leveraged for innovation. The dense population and multi-variant stratification of populations provide unique respective that are vital to solving complex problems. Furthermore, these ecosystems operate in a unique ground state where there is an acceptance of innovation constraints, especially as the apply to larger established industries. This critical mix is the rich breeding ground for practical innovation. Western markets fail themselves here in not being able to effectively integrate diverse opinions.

What is puzzling is that western countries would, on paper, have a rich advantage over other ecosystems because they actually have immigrated a multitude of ideas and have the advantage of modern capital to pour into these problems. However, stratification in western society closely dictates which opinions rise to the top. Let us, for a moment, effectively ignore the equity and human rights based arguments for inclusion and focus merely on the evolutionary practical need for diversity. The common place argument for lack of diversity in tech/management/finance/art [insert your choice of industry], is often the presumption of lack of interest. While countless studies indicate that people of color or women who are in these sectors are marginalized simply because they look or sound a certain way. In the realm of innovation, western societies have created an effective isolated society in which the greatest predictor of which ideas are promoted is gender and color. The reason diversity and inclusion are important to innovation is that differences in opinions provide the key nutrients where transformative ideas flourish. One cannot be predictive in which transformative idea came from which difference inherent in the team- therefore the most economically and practically sound solution is to ensure no ideas are ignored and bias is reduced.

Another complexity to transformative idea generation is a level of idol worship associated with who is given credit for the idea- rather than the study of the idea. Effectively the dissolution of the team and the rise of the lone inventor. Take something like space flight for instance, the names Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong are enshrined in Space Lore- but the name Katherine Johnson was only given some token space when the film Hidden Figures was released. While the author does not want to minimize the effort and resolve it takes to decide to let oneself be strapped onto an effective explosive devise and shot into space with no certainty of return- it takes a ridiculous brain to be able to calculate how to bring that projectile back to earth with the computational power less than a Timex watch. History is as flawed as the human who writes it, thus human history is rife with inaccuracies reflective of our own prejudices. It cannot be trusted to make sound innovation policy, because we have generations of people trying to emulate Neil Armstrong and only recently did we understand why we didn’t lose them as space debris. The importance of understanding these nuances and their impact on innovation and creation is vital because without a global lens, we continue to innovate ways for shorter and shorter attention spans.

Innovation, creation is not a solitary activity. It is a team sport, with the added challenge that one cannot always know who is on one’s team. Recognizing the team ecosystem approach is one of the vital success factors in companies like Pixar, Goretx and 3M who have long used approaches to increase spaces where ideas can collide. What the author finds amusing is this inherent value of diversity is exemplified in nature everywhere, if the ingredients are the same you get the same type of reactions. From the development of a new molecule to a new species- you need more than one kind of chemical to have something fun happen. A vial of hydrogen is just hydrogen unless you combine it with something like oxygen. Phosphorous is quite boring until its exposed to oxygen- then well literal sparks fly.

While the idea and value of diversity is often studied and validated through studies where more women are in leadership position to more people of color, the odd byproduct of this is not that we have created integrated approaches to address our biases but rather we people from marginalized groups are added as token members of a team to make the show of diversity. Thus leading to the bizarre construct where people from diverse backgrounds may exist on teams but their opinions are still not integrated. What is inherently puzzling about this resistance is that all systems where diversity is weeded out are less resilient and more prone to failure. Effectively homogeneous populations and groups tend to be more prone to suffer when environments change. Human beings, and those in places of power often look to the measurement of something as the end goal- as if the measurement of diversity, highlighted in the number of visible differences would somehow be the end itself. Human measurement systems are in their infancy and riddled with inaccuracies — optimizing to the type of measurement becoming the end goal. No more is this phenomenon more visible that the bizarre conflation of followers on social media and merit in an idea.

While stereotypes and discrimination are rife in Asian countries, they tend not to be as pronounced a barrier as they are seen in western innovation ecosystems. It is commonplace to see more diversity in the teams that create new emerging technologies and solutions. This is likely not a result of sweeping cultural differences that inherently value diversity but rather simply a numbers game. There is simply so much diversity of thought in so many people that ideas find it easier to find nurturing minds- its easier to identify and build in an ecosystem that would inherently value merit because its faster to prove. In population dense countries where problems are plentiful and solutions are needed, merit has a way to show value because it actually sits to solve a problem and constraints are more obvious and thus dealt with in a more practical way. It is simply impractical to be able to effectively discriminate against the amount of different life experiences that exist in many Asian ecosystems and their need to change it too dire to be able to spend time contemplating the value of inclusion.

Natural systems use diversity, not because they make a conscious sentient choice but rather because diversity is the ingredient available and using all the resources available ensures the greatest probability for survival of species. It is effectively a fundamental natural law. It is curious that human systems would evolve in such an artificial way. The creation and adherence to a social hierarchy based on looks and sounds seems bizarre and antithetical to the actual success of the process of innovation. What someone looks like and sounds like is more predictive in how much success their idea gets. This is not a small problem for solving large problems, as society begins to dawn into the age of self adapting algorithms and the notion of artificial intelligence the first key things we are discovering are effectively how biased our society is. From facebooks algorithms that promote high paying jobs to men alone, to self driving cars that have to categorize which pixel combination is a person and which is not. Hands free soap dispensers that don’t work if your melanin is higher than that of the people who were used to test the technology, medicine that’s mostly tested on one group of the population and dosages that are calibrated to the population group. Until now we have not been faced with large cataclysmic problems that needed the best solutions, but today as we stare down the barrel of climate change, health pandemics, agricultural insecurity and massive polarization, we cannot afford to think of innovation and meritocracy as a nice to have.