PDA

View Full Version : Have we caught the “not invented here” disease?



Nemo
2006-May-01 Mon, 10:32
...it's a subtle trap....

...companies or organizations fall into it all the time.

They start out as innovators, and because of their innovations they lead the field. But then they get cocky. They begin to delude themselves into thinking that they are superior.... they get close minded to anything else. After all they are the leaders in the field. If it hasn't come from their organization or research then it must be inferior.

It's a common problem in the business world, so common in fact that they have a name for. It's called “the not invented here syndrome”.

History proves that once this syndrome takes over an organization or business (or individual for that matter) it's only a matter of time before...

1)They are eclipsed by a smaller, more nimble, more innovative competitor.
2)They restructure and begin acting as an innovator again.

It is my observation that no where is this syndrome more apparent than in the RV community.

How can I say that? Well, I could be wrong on this one, but show me the innovations! What innovations have their been in the last five years, hell in the last 10 years? Most are using the exact same protocol and process that was developed through the initial military programs.

And why is this the case? Here's my take...

... anyone who dares question the way things are done, anyone who dares try something new, anyone who dares experiment with alterations in “the sacred protocol” is quickly cannibalized by the community.

You'd think that the existing protocols and methodologies are some kind of sacred scripture. That anyone who dares question its validity, basis, or God forbid dares change something is questioning the word of God.

The RV field his begging for innovators. We've taken the doom and gloom scare tactics as far as they can go. We've taken the current way we do things as far as they can go. If the field is going to grow it needs new blood. It needs new thinkers. It needs innovators.

The community needs to give up their dinosaur way of thinking and embrace innovators. The community needs to learn to collaborate rather than compete. It needs to learn to embrace new blood rather then cannibalize it.

Sure something is to be said for sticking to whats proven to work. However if we never try something new innovation will never happen....

And what does not grow dies!

We need to build on current research, but also not be afraid to try something completely different, completely new....

... then judge by results!

In my opinion the only question should be...

...does it work? Does it work better than what we're doing now?

If the answer is yes then that innovation should be wholeheartedly embraced regardless of where it came from or how it was developed.

Embrace the innovators... those are the most valuable assets in any organization!

Robert
2006-May-02 Tue, 07:00
Go old innovation! Nothing wrong with that!
But I would approach this with caution. I would ask: What is and is NOT an innovation? When are we being innovative and when are we just trying to be "different?" I imagine the real testing is in the end results. How does it measure up against other methods. Does this "innovation" accomplish something it's rival does not? DOes it allow for something the other does not. What are it's selling points and are they real or imagined. But no matter what new method comes along the results still rest heavily on the shoulders of the end user. (:-)
Robert

George
2006-May-02 Tue, 15:22
Yes, I agree that innovation is needed. One thing that seems to me to be most missing is the use of RV to direct us toward the best innovations. Crudely put, RV the best way to improve RV. The concept is simple, the implementation will likely be more difficult. Yet, getting THE BEST innovation for RV should be well worth the effort.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2006-May-02 Tue, 20:51
Aloha Nemo,

Over the years I have indeed been surprised that the CRV derived methodologies have made no moves to upgrade or update. My main consideration is that CRV/TRV/TDS/SRV is frankly an Analysts nightmare. I know Dr. Brown has made some progress in how he handles and evaluates data but alas he is alone in that endeavor.

What we see in the CRV based community is the standard array of castles and the drawbridges are pretty much in the up position. At some point someone needs to revamp the CRV collection scheme to facilitate not only analysis, but improved collection methodology. The dilemma is that CRV is first and foremost a "Product" that is being sold for real money. Until the community itself begins to develop groups and organizations to train and R&D outside of the for-profit arena the stagnation of CRV based methodologies will remain in effect.

HRVG is not CRV based and my comments are not directed at our way of collection.

Glenn