Skip to content

A New Era Of Innovation

2016 August 14
by Greg Satell

For the past 20 or 30 years, innovation, especially in the digital space, has been fairly straightforward. We could rely on technology to improve at a foreseeable pace and that allowed us to predict, with a high degree of certainty, what would be possible in the years to come.

That led most innovation efforts to be focused on applications, with a heavy emphasis on the end user. Startups that were able to design an experience, test it, adapt and iterate quickly could outperform big firms that had far more resources and technological sophistication. Agility was often the defining competitive attribute.

Yet in the years to come the pendulum is likely to swing from applications back to the fundamental technologies that make them possible. Rather than being able to rely on trusty old paradigms, we’ll largely be operating in the realm of the unknown. In many ways, we’ll be starting over again and innovation will look more like it did in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Moore’s Law And The Rise Of Agility

To understand what’s going on, let’s look at the fundamental paradigm of the digital age, Moore’s law, based on Intel cofounder Gordon Moore’s remarkably prescient observation that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double every two years. Moore also predicted that this rate would continue for the foreseeable future.

As it turned out, Moore was right and we’ve mostly been able to maintain that pace, which has served as a roadmap. Those who wished to innovate in the digital space could design products knowing that they would have twice the processing power to work with on a regular basis.

It also had a less obvious effect. Since the rules of the game were well known, the fastest player had an enormous advantage. Agile startups emerged out of garages to run circles around their larger rivals, with well financed development efforts and well oiled marketing machines. The Davids, so to speak, were taking the Goliaths to the woodshed.

There were some important exceptions. Microsoft, for example, completely missed the move to mobile computing, but continued to prosper thanks to some long-term bets it made in cloud technology. IBM has been another company that has been able to transcend technology cycles through fundamental discoveries.

Still, for the most part, agility trumped scale. The faster you were, the better you were.

The 2020 Tipping Point

The idea of agility as the defining competitive attribute has become such an integral part of the conventional wisdom that few today realize that is is a relatively recent phenomenon. It used to be that research and development were significant barriers to entry, especially in information technology, where IBM and the BUNCH companies once reigned.

Yet after 2020, things will begin to change. That old trusty friend, Moore’s law, will end. Advances in lithium-ion batteries, which we’ve come to depend to power our laptops, smartphones and, increasingly electric cars, will slow to a crawl. Bloomberg also predicts that electric cars will be cheaper than gasoline cars by 2022, ending the dominance of the internal combustion engine.

However, while some things are ending, others are just beginning. Solar energy is expected to hit global grid parity by 2020 and we should be able to decode genomes for less than $100 in a decade or so, unlocking completely new scientific possibilities. Experts also predict that there will be 10 million self-driving cars on the road by 2020.

So in a nutshell, we’re likely to see transformations across a wide variety of industries, including information technology, healthcare, energy and transportation. What’s more, the fundamental nature of these changes will be unlike anything we’ve experienced since the early 20th century, when electricity and the internal combustion engine were just beginning to have an impact.

New Paradigms For A New Era

In the recent past, the biggest challenge was the pace of change. Things moved fast so we had to race to keep up. But over the next 20 years or so, we will be working with new technologies that we are just beginning to understand. That will greatly change the problems we will face. It won’t be just the pace of change, but the very nature of that change we will struggle with.

Consider quantum computing and neuromorphic chips, two post-Moore’s law technologies that are likely to become widely deployed after 2020 and that function very differently than traditional computing frameworks. While we know theoretically what the potential of these should be, in practical terms, we know very little. After all, nobody has ever used them before.

There are also completely new fields emerging such as genomics, nanotechnology and robotics, which are truly cutting edge technologies that require PhD level specialists to work with them. Unlike building a new iPhone app or creating a user interface, these won’t lend themselves to the old “iterate, adapt and pivot” approach, at least not for a few decades.

Another thing to consider will be resource constraints. There are relatively few trained specialists in areas like machine learning and those that are qualified are rumored to be paid like professional athletes. Few firms, outside of the likes of Google, IBM, Microsoft and a few others are able to compete for them.

The Challenge Ahead: Overcoming The Valley Of Death

Over the past generation, innovation has mostly been an engineering problem. Software developers learned languages like Python and C++, which themselves were based on earlier languages, tracing their lineage all the way back to early ancestors like Fortran and COBOL. Chip and battery designs followed similar paths.

Now, however, we’re entering truly new territory and simply moving faster won’t be enough any more. The central challenge will be to bridge the gap—unaffectionately known in the scientific world as the “Valley of Death”—between discovery and commercialization. In the past, this has mainly been a government role, but in the years to come, the private sector will have to step up.

Rather than simply hacking their way to success, managers will find it increasingly important to identify and access new discoveries in the academic world. We’ll also need to create a new breed of innovative organization, which integrates the efforts of government agencies, academic institutions and private companies.

Dharemendra Modha, who leads IBM’s team developing neuromorphic chips told me, “We’re largely working in uncharted territory, so there is literally no one person on earth who has all the answers. Building a shared vision and a collaborative spirit among world-class scientists from a wide range of organizations has been absolutely crucial to our success.”

As we enter this new era of innovation, collaboration will become a key competitive attribute. It will no longer be enough to be agile and disrupt, we will have to discover and build.

– Greg



6 Responses leave one →
  1. Voncelle Volté permalink
    August 15, 2016

    You can’t talk about a new era of innovation without including the Blockchain in the conversation.

  2. August 16, 2016

    Really? Why not? Do you really think that Blockchain compares with being able to continually increase computing power over the next 50 year or so? Or the ability to continually improve how we power our devices, make products and cure disease. Does an algorithm with ability to create trust in anonymous transactions really compare to the ability to create intelligent machines?

    If so, how?

    – Greg

  3. Voncelle Volté permalink
    August 21, 2016

    Yes, really. My Blockchain comment was not about comparison. It was about inclusion in your article filled (to the brim) with other types of Post-Gordon Moore innovation. With all due respect, you still haven’t explained why you left Blockchain out. Don’t bother.

    By the way, some people actually read your articles. Most people read the first paragraph, and share your posts. I know the game. I went a step further and made a comment. Be grateful because I have a choice, which publications I choose to read, share, and make comments. In short, this is my last visit to your site.

    Good luck, and God bless you in all of your endeavors.

  4. August 22, 2016

    I’ve covered blockchain before (see here). I just didn’t feel that it belonged in this article, because I believe the ones I listed here are the most significant.

    Thank you for reading and commenting.

    – Greg

  5. April 11, 2021

    Hi Greg, I always value hearing other perspectives on change, technology, innovation and the future of work, as one that immersed myself into all of it. My views, and vested actions were largely based on advanced design and systems thinking skills and a blend of value creation and values-synthesis skills across any stakeholder ecosystem. I appreciate your full range of topical coverage and great writing skills.

    I saw many things I would like to add so your topics, especially with regard to crucial earned relevance as my focus on that without fail increased success by 30X to 300X on a scale of millions to billions in revenue growth. Why, because what you stand for is more important than what you make. and my real experience doing all of this and advancing it, so the combination integrates your statistical attention with mine that represents the emotional shifts and values crucial to earn so our full humanity drives change versus feeling disrupted by technologies insensitive to our humanity.

    Two examples:

    “Rather than simply hacking their way to success, managers will find it increasingly important to identify and access new discoveries in the academic world. We’ll also need to create a new breed of innovative organization, which integrates the efforts of government agencies, academic institutions and private companies.”

    1. The growing gap between academia and business is the real issue. I shaped a $1B HP Education Program on far less than I see now, but you have to see the system. especially our humanity. As when you have internal & external stakeholders trust and earned relevance behind you, that support is the best force through disruptive change.

    2. I agree with creating a new type of innovation organization, as one who also agrees with your comments on the need for greater attention to integrating others. I have a clear view of why most Millennials and younger prefer an entrepreneurial culture and why mid to large corporations both fail and fall off their list.

    More importantly:
    1. The need for more people with advanced design thinking and agile skills, as I was blessed to develop, affects about every organization out there, across all industries, especially left brain dominated ones where creativity, values, and systems thinking is rarest – across functions, on C-Suite teams and on Boards. When HP deemed me as their top brand, stakeholder, credibility and revenue growth strategist, my full attention was invested in others, purpose and an open attitude.

    2. I am now championing the value and need for more Conscious Innovation and We-Relevance as the two biggest positive forces for a more compelling future. Higher diversity, values, inclusion and trust as success now follows the greatest sustained relevance. I am championing two major environmental and health innovations now as I was tired of all the lame excuses and minimal progress regarding our environment, health and equality in a Nation and a world out of balance.

    Greg, keep up your great work while enrichening your points of valued perspective, with others whose experience and mindset paints the full and bigger picture all or most still miss. You have that great name – Digital Tonto. But Digital itself has a great future where it leverages our humanity versus temptations to replace us.

    Best, Bill

  6. April 14, 2021

    Thanks Bill. I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.

    – Greg

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS