<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Edison Was Wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/</link>
	<description>Steve shares his unconventional approach on Business Innovation, Creativity, Goals and Critical Thinking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:23:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roland Harwood</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-36249</link>
		<dc:creator>Roland Harwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-36249</guid>
		<description>Great article. Agree wholeheartedly about the parallel iterative nature of innovation. If innovation had a shape, I&#039;d say it was a comedy bow tie. Lots of diverse inputs and outputs with an iterative core. For more see this blog post:

http://blogs.nesta.org.uk/connect/2008/08/the-comedy-bow.html

Regards,
Roland</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article. Agree wholeheartedly about the parallel iterative nature of innovation. If innovation had a shape, I&#8217;d say it was a comedy bow tie. Lots of diverse inputs and outputs with an iterative core. For more see this blog post:</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.nesta.org.uk/connect/2008/08/the-comedy-bow.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.nesta.org.uk/connect/2008/08/the-comedy-bow.html</a></p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Roland</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Le Plaid (leplaid) 's status on Sunday, 23-Aug-09 11:40:25 UTC - Identi.ca</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-36066</link>
		<dc:creator>Le Plaid (leplaid) 's status on Sunday, 23-Aug-09 11:40:25 UTC - Identi.ca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-36066</guid>
		<description>[...] open innovation http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] open innovation <a href="http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/" rel="nofollow">http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toby Elwin</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-36051</link>
		<dc:creator>Toby Elwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:05:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-36051</guid>
		<description>Since I read, &quot;The Future of Ideas&quot; I have found myself continually supporting collaboration as a means to achieve a future of what &quot;could be&quot;.  

Open source and crowd surfing continues to baffle a world and leaders who can&#039;t give up their command and control theory of management and business.  We live in the age of the knowledge worker, but can not cross that bridge from pre-WW II, management philosophy of the labor worker.

We have a strong challenge ahead:  undo the culture that the more knowledge I accumulate, the more I control others.  It should be obvious no one can own all knowledge available, however, the attitude persists.  A second challenge is to realize if we are in a knowledge-based society no matter the ability, skills, or knowledge of an individual or a team little will be accomplished without their motivation.  We need to connect with people, not only financial projections or the expectation of unlimited quarterly profits.  Too many are afraid to connect to a person to understand their role to organization success.

It is great to discover your posts, your thoughts, and your advocacy.  Your thoughts present another example of normal distribution.  If more people believe like you, it would no longer reside at the edge, but revert to a new mean.

Thanks,

Toby Elwin

twitter.com/telwin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since I read, &#8220;The Future of Ideas&#8221; I have found myself continually supporting collaboration as a means to achieve a future of what &#8220;could be&#8221;.  </p>
<p>Open source and crowd surfing continues to baffle a world and leaders who can&#8217;t give up their command and control theory of management and business.  We live in the age of the knowledge worker, but can not cross that bridge from pre-WW II, management philosophy of the labor worker.</p>
<p>We have a strong challenge ahead:  undo the culture that the more knowledge I accumulate, the more I control others.  It should be obvious no one can own all knowledge available, however, the attitude persists.  A second challenge is to realize if we are in a knowledge-based society no matter the ability, skills, or knowledge of an individual or a team little will be accomplished without their motivation.  We need to connect with people, not only financial projections or the expectation of unlimited quarterly profits.  Too many are afraid to connect to a person to understand their role to organization success.</p>
<p>It is great to discover your posts, your thoughts, and your advocacy.  Your thoughts present another example of normal distribution.  If more people believe like you, it would no longer reside at the edge, but revert to a new mean.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Toby Elwin</p>
<p>twitter.com/telwin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Renee Hopkins</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-36030</link>
		<dc:creator>Renee Hopkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-36030</guid>
		<description>Stephen, I really enjoyed reading this, especially after the conversation on this subject we had last week. I wonder now though if part of the answer of whether these 700 attempts were failures might be in how they were conceived in the first place. If Edison had set them up as experiments, testing different parts of the solution, perhaps it wouldn&#039;t have taken as many? I do feel strongly that the success of iterative development depends on exactly the type of integration you describe late in the post, and for me that integration would include a more structured approach to the iteration, in the form of a specific test-and-learn strategy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen, I really enjoyed reading this, especially after the conversation on this subject we had last week. I wonder now though if part of the answer of whether these 700 attempts were failures might be in how they were conceived in the first place. If Edison had set them up as experiments, testing different parts of the solution, perhaps it wouldn&#8217;t have taken as many? I do feel strongly that the success of iterative development depends on exactly the type of integration you describe late in the post, and for me that integration would include a more structured approach to the iteration, in the form of a specific test-and-learn strategy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tanveer Naseer</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-35995</link>
		<dc:creator>Tanveer Naseer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-35995</guid>
		<description>Stephen, thanks for sharing your thoughts from what must have been a stimulating conversation.  Your perspective on Edison&#039;s famous quote is a refreshing one since it doesn&#039;t point out that he learned anything from those failures other than the approach didn&#039;t work.  And as you said, if you succeed on the first attempt, what did you lose by not having failed 700 times other than time and resources.

Of course, I think the notion of failure has become somewhat confused, where some think you should aim for failure in order to succeed where in fact the point should be to not be afraid of failure on your road to succeed.  With the global economy in troubled waters these days, it&#039;s understandable that some companies would want to shy away from any innovations that might fail.  However, I don&#039;t think companies should aim to fail simply because they think that it will somehow lead to success.  If we could ask Edison about his quote, I&#039;m sure he&#039;d clarify that if he had the option, he&#039;d have preferred to have solved the light bulb design on the 7th try and not the 700th.

Again, a very-thought provoking post, Stephen.  Thanks for sharing.

Tanveer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen, thanks for sharing your thoughts from what must have been a stimulating conversation.  Your perspective on Edison&#8217;s famous quote is a refreshing one since it doesn&#8217;t point out that he learned anything from those failures other than the approach didn&#8217;t work.  And as you said, if you succeed on the first attempt, what did you lose by not having failed 700 times other than time and resources.</p>
<p>Of course, I think the notion of failure has become somewhat confused, where some think you should aim for failure in order to succeed where in fact the point should be to not be afraid of failure on your road to succeed.  With the global economy in troubled waters these days, it&#8217;s understandable that some companies would want to shy away from any innovations that might fail.  However, I don&#8217;t think companies should aim to fail simply because they think that it will somehow lead to success.  If we could ask Edison about his quote, I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;d clarify that if he had the option, he&#8217;d have preferred to have solved the light bulb design on the 7th try and not the 700th.</p>
<p>Again, a very-thought provoking post, Stephen.  Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>Tanveer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tudor</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-35988</link>
		<dc:creator>Tudor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:51:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-35988</guid>
		<description>Important issue:  Not sure if the debate risks making Edison a straw man.  Not sure if Big Pharma is really embracing Open innovation. In practice, the dreaded innovation funnel still dominates thinking and its actions. 

&quot;The big question for Big Pharma: Is the pipeline metaphor for drug discovery and exploitation no longer fit for purpose?  And if so, where do we look for a more appropriate metaphor? &quot;

http://leaderswedeserve.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-drug-pipeline-is-it-bust-and-if-so-can-we-fix-it/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Important issue:  Not sure if the debate risks making Edison a straw man.  Not sure if Big Pharma is really embracing Open innovation. In practice, the dreaded innovation funnel still dominates thinking and its actions. </p>
<p>&#8220;The big question for Big Pharma: Is the pipeline metaphor for drug discovery and exploitation no longer fit for purpose?  And if so, where do we look for a more appropriate metaphor? &#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://leaderswedeserve.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-drug-pipeline-is-it-bust-and-if-so-can-we-fix-it/" rel="nofollow">http://leaderswedeserve.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-drug-pipeline-is-it-bust-and-if-so-can-we-fix-it/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Shapiro</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-35979</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Shapiro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-35979</guid>
		<description>Wally...thanks for the comment.  Good point about &quot;oscillating&quot; in an out of divergent and convergent thinking (if that is what you were suggesting).  

And so true about the Edison quote.  He failed either 700 times, 1000 times, or 10,000 times.  Regardless, I think we can be certain he did not find a solution on the first try.

The oldest quote I could find was... &quot;Failed? â€” why we haven&#039;t failed, we only know the thousands of ways that won&#039;t work.&quot; As paraphrased in Proceedings of the Regular Meeting (1924) by The Association of American Railroads, Car Service Division, p. 23, source http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison 

Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wally&#8230;thanks for the comment.  Good point about &#8220;oscillating&#8221; in an out of divergent and convergent thinking (if that is what you were suggesting).  </p>
<p>And so true about the Edison quote.  He failed either 700 times, 1000 times, or 10,000 times.  Regardless, I think we can be certain he did not find a solution on the first try.</p>
<p>The oldest quote I could find was&#8230; &#8220;Failed? â€” why we haven&#8217;t failed, we only know the thousands of ways that won&#8217;t work.&#8221; As paraphrased in Proceedings of the Regular Meeting (1924) by The Association of American Railroads, Car Service Division, p. 23, source <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison</a> </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wally Bock</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-35978</link>
		<dc:creator>Wally Bock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-35978</guid>
		<description>Nice, provocative piece. The art of innovation in a connected world is often keeping the process open during the observation and comments phase, then narrowing it down to make some changes, then opening it again. The crowd is not always wise, even if more eyeballs spot more problems.

Ironically, it&#039;s entirely possible that Edison never said that famous quote. It&#039;s quoted in too many ways, with too many different numbers, and I don&#039;t think anyone&#039;s actually sourced it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice, provocative piece. The art of innovation in a connected world is often keeping the process open during the observation and comments phase, then narrowing it down to make some changes, then opening it again. The crowd is not always wise, even if more eyeballs spot more problems.</p>
<p>Ironically, it&#8217;s entirely possible that Edison never said that famous quote. It&#8217;s quoted in too many ways, with too many different numbers, and I don&#8217;t think anyone&#8217;s actually sourced it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Shapiro</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-35974</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Shapiro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-35974</guid>
		<description>Roland.  Thanks for your comment.  You are correct.  There are many other benefits of open innovation and crowdsourcing.  I was only looking to highlight one instance.

A big advantage is diversity of the solver community.  If you have 100 chemist working on a problem, will adding the 101st really add that much value?  But if you added people from different background, it increases the likelihood of the problem being solved.

Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roland.  Thanks for your comment.  You are correct.  There are many other benefits of open innovation and crowdsourcing.  I was only looking to highlight one instance.</p>
<p>A big advantage is diversity of the solver community.  If you have 100 chemist working on a problem, will adding the 101st really add that much value?  But if you added people from different background, it increases the likelihood of the problem being solved.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Shapiro on Edison&#8217;s 700 non-failures &#171; Raz&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.steveshapiro.com/2009/08/07/failure/comment-page-1/#comment-35952</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Shapiro on Edison&#8217;s 700 non-failures &#171; Raz&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 09:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveshapiro.com/?p=1786#comment-35952</guid>
		<description>[...] Shapiro on Edison&#8217;s 700&#160;non-failures By Roland Turner  Stephen Shapiro makes the point that the tendency by R&amp;D organisations to puppet Edison&#8217;s famous claim are essentially [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Shapiro on Edison&#8217;s 700&nbsp;non-failures By Roland Turner  Stephen Shapiro makes the point that the tendency by R&amp;D organisations to puppet Edison&#8217;s famous claim are essentially [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
