Everyone knows that global innovation is increasing at speed blades, right? Well, maybe it's not, Jonathan Huebner, author of the magazine "Possible Declining Tendency for Innovation in the World." He argues that contrary to traditional wisdom, global innovation is actually on the skis. If it is correct, this can change how many employers view and manage innovation in the organization.
Huebner (2005a) claims that the proportion of human resources used – when measured in terms of significant technological innovations per year – has fallen since the late 19th century or early 20th century, depending on which data collection is used. Huebner bases its conclusions on two different analyzes. First, he investigated 7,198 significant development of technology that took place between the end of darkness and modern times, as recorded in the History of Science and Technology. Using this data collection, he found that the speed of innovation reached its peak in 1873. Second, he looked at the number of US patents granted to the United States residence during the period. Using these data, he found that innovation speed peaked in 1916.
By following fraud, Huebner extracted in 2024, according to estimates, the rate of international innovation per person is no higher than it was during a dark period centuries (which Huebner defines as the end of mid 1400). In other words, he believes that the modern world could soon reach a 600-year minimum in terms of the inventor.
Such requirements are likely to surprise some. After all, the world is often flooded with new gadgets, ideas and services. But this impression can have more to do with a clean population than the speed of innovation. There were only about 425 million people in the world around 1500, compared with over 6.5 billion today ("World", 2006). Even if innovation grew to equal populations in both times, we would still be 14 times more innovations relative to the population alone.
But some experts do not want to admit that innovation is actually slowing down. Futurist Joseph Coates (2005) participates in Huebner's analysis, especially with his technique of linking a number of innovations to the population population. Coates writes, "With the explosives of the people of India, China, Africa, South Sahara, South America and Southeast Asia, who had little or no history of great creativity in science or technology, the name of [Huebner's] valuation is simply inappropriate. "Theodore Modis (2005), the founder of the growth company Dynamics, recommends similar reservations and assumptions that growing developing countries will eventually become much bigger innovators.
However, Huebner (2005b) seems to have been well diagnosed, sometimes even using data sets that his opponents offer to support his argument. If he is even partially correct, the question will be what would cause the downturn in innovation? After all, people should be more creative than ever, thanks to better educated people today, large amounts of money are spent on research and development, and increasingly powerful information technology that is widely available to researchers.
Huebner offers two possible explanations. First, the world can approach economic goals for innovation, as each new new major innovation will be more and more expensive to develop. Secondly, we could achieve goals for the brain. Human beings, which he proposes, are "bombings with much more information than they can work", which makes innovation harder.
Prof. Benjamin Jones (2005) at Kellogg School of Management offers only a different explanatory model, which, however, supports an assertion that we can reach the brain's boundary. He points to what he calls "growing burdens of knowledge" that potential inventors have to bear before they can create something new (Hayden, 2005). Thus, the testimony of humanity has already grown to the extent that people often need to spend years learning it before they can develop significant new ideas themselves. Jones research suggests that for innovation today, inventors need to learn more first, specialize in limited knowledge and more heavily in collaboration. But these methods of enhancing innovation can only be moved to date. Jones points out that if knowledge grows significantly, it could be bad news for the long-term growth of innovation.
Suppose Huebner and Jones are right, it is likely that innovations have already become – and will always be – on the contrary. This has a number of consequences for executives. First, major innovations may become increasingly sharp resources in the future and increase the potential market value of any major step forward. As the value increases, the pressure will either exploit or find other major competitive advantage in the market.
Secondly, companies wishing to make use of managing their knowledge workers very well. They will need to hire highly knowledgeable and latest scientists and engineers, people who have had time to utilize knowledge in their field. Then they need to train these people to work as efficiently as possible to maximize their team skills for innovation. Employers may also need to find ways to help inventors to filter or customize other information