Video: Innovation is Actually Easy!

Today I was trying to see the new NASA video “Pathways” on Youtube and I followed the related videos to the “Tom Peters: Innovation is Actually Easy!” video.  Now Tom Peters made a statement  in this video that really made me think:  

“Benchmarking is stupid.  Why is it stupid?  Because we pick the current industry leader and then we launch a 5 year program, the goal of which is to be as good as whoever was best 5 years ago 5 years from now. “

Please take the time to read this again.  We at opennasa have used Google and P&G as benchmarks of what NASA should do and be like.  We have effectively asked “How do we we make NASA as great as Google/P&G?” We should instead be asking :

  • What can we do to make Google and P&G want to be like NASA?  
  • What can we do so that one day future CEO’s dismiss NASA’s success as “They are only that successful because they are government funded, and they can take more risk…we can’t take those risks in industry” ?  
  • What can we do so that businesses compete to work with NASA, at a reduced cost, because of the high ROI (Return on Investment) inherent in working with NASA?  
  • What can we do so that working for NASA is the #1 choice to work for from college graduates?  

Right now I don’t have any answers to these questions, because I have been too focused on helping get NASA to a state that is “tried and true” as shown by the examples of Google and P&G.  

If we truly want to be innovative we have to push to be better than the rest.  

“The leader is the leader precisely because he did something remarkable.  And the remarkable thing is now taken – so it’s no longer remarkable when you decided to do it.” — Seth Godin, Fast Company / 02.2003

There is no doubt in my mind that this can be accomplished; if we add faith and resolve to innovation.  The people that work with/for NASA are the smartest and most creative workers on earth — believe it.  

(I saw the “Pathway” video, and I absolutely loved it.  It is like a fantastical dream come true.  I mentioned it because it is what led to the above video, but I think it is best if someone who worked on it blogs about it.)

6 Responses to “Video: Innovation is Actually Easy!”

  1. Dave Huntsman  on March 28th, 2009

    What can we do to make Google and P&G want to be like NASA?

    I’m not sure they should. We shouldn’t be doing anything in direct competition with industry most of the time. We need to do the things they can’t – or, won’t – and then see that those things have a direct way at further enabling the economy. In the same way, I’m not sure there were many who tried to imitate the old Bell Labs in the past (or, was there??); since they were funded by a mix of government, and the national telephone monopoly. But it was others who commercialized much – maybe, most – of their discoveries, I think.

    What can we do so that one day future CEO’s dismiss NASA’s success as “They are only that successful because they are government funded, and they can take more risk…we can’t take those risks in industry” ?

    A government agency like NASA and the private sector need to be successful at different things. We need to be feeding the rest of the economy with things that otherwise wouldn’t get done; ie, via certain types of innovation. And then that rest of the economy needs to pick up from there.

    “Sustainable space” – ie, creating a space economy and space industry that does not fall apart if government cuts the budget one year – means that not only does NASA have to help create new technologies, new management methods, new industry, etc.., but they must be also be effectively disseminated into the larger economy/ country/planet. Tech transfer, STTR, even SBIR, IPP, etc. But it is still true that U.S. leadership in many areas – including air transport -and other areas of manufacturing, has declined over the decades of NASA’s existence. For the many tens of billions of $$ poured into us, the effect on spreading productively into the rest of the economy almost certainly has been decreasing over time.

    If there is to be benchmarking of any sort for us, it first and foremost needs to be done against our increasingly competitive, er, friends on this planet. We’re almost becoming like our health care system: we spend hugely more than any other OECD country – yet we have worse outcomes and lower quality of life in many ways! No one has outspent us in aerospace the past decades – yet you sure wouldn’t know it for the competitiveness of our industries and economy, which has become less competitive over that same time. Why?

  2. Justin  on March 31st, 2009

    I couldn’t have said it better, Dave.

  3. rquintanilla  on April 1st, 2009

    I agree that NASA should never compete directly with industry. Today, there are several companies that can be used as guides or sources of inspiration on how to do things RIGHT. These companies include Google, P&G and Toyota to name a few. They are such good organizational sources that there are countless many books written to pinpoint their success (I haven’t found a good book about Google, but I have read some articles). Now the idea behind “What can we do to make Google and P&G want to be like NASA?” is : What can we do so that great organizations look at how we operate/execute to gather lessons learned for their own organizations? — If we can accomplish this, then we know we are executing.

    I also agree that the standards for NASA and industry are different. The question : “They are only that successful because they are government funded and they can take more risk…we can’t take those risk in industry?” is partly to contrast current statements : “NASA can’t be successful because it is a government agency” . Look we generally have 1% of the federal budget given to us. That is a lot of money. What do we have to show for it : Going to the moon at twice the cost and twice the time with at least 10 times better technology (sources for the cost are in comparison to the Apollo program, different sources state different things – largest estimate I have seen is approx 240 billion to get us to the moon – best estimate I have seen is equivalent cost, but twice as long). Something is obviously wrong. Now I don’t want to discredit the work of the many people who are working to get us to the moon, but there is an obvious disconnect that is occurring.

    It seems to me that NASA spreads themselves too thin. It is better to do a few things really well, than many things that are just “good enough”. NASA also appears to like to get things at the lowest cost possible short-term. The pursuit of low-cost in the short-term increases the long-term costs. Sometimes it is better to spend more now too save more later.

    We need to get the best and the brightest working at NASA; that should be a clear and unquestionable goal. If you want the best and the brightest it won’t come cheap, but not getting the best and brightest could cost an arm and a leg. I am not saying that NASA should become a group of elite individuals, it should however do everything in its power to attract a greater number of the best and brightest. I don’t think that NASA provides the proper incentives to get this done.

    We can talk about what NASA does wrong for weeks, but this won’t help. What NASA needs is a vision/goal that is as great as the mission to the Moon was in the 60’s. Going to the moon or Mars now is not as inspiring today as it once was. We need a vision that is not only inspirational to the general public, but also profitable for industry (due to advances in technology).

    We need a bold vision that is beyond things that are currently being done by industry.

  4. Patricia Pahlavani  on April 2nd, 2009

    Hey all! Looked at Tom’s video and enjoyed. I have been at NASA since 1990. It’s my experience that there is innovation and excitement at NASA but you have to look for it. It should not have to be this way but it seems those activities ongoing in the Agency that are truly innovative are flying under the radar.

    I am not a technical person. I went from social welfare (state employment) to space (Fed). My background is administrative with experience in technical and functional organizations.

    I first heard about this site while attending the NESC (NASA Engineering and Safety Center) Academy course at Penn State. The course was on Innovative Engineering. Just as an FYI there will soon be an announcement on a new Resident Engineer Program sponsored by the NESC. The NESC is physically located at LaRC but is a matrixed and virtual organization with teams throughout the Agency working on real Angency problems.

    I thought this might be one avaenue to get the word out to young engeneers looking for a unique experience. As they say in the government: “we will know more later.”

    Thanks for listening, Patricia.

  5. Rolando Quintanilla  on April 5th, 2009

    Patricia,

    Thanks for comment, I really like the idea behind the Resident Engineer.

    I know that there are innovative and exciting projects at NASA but it is really hard to find out anything about them. You have to search and know what you are looking for. You basically have to be a Space Geek to know or your job is to know.

    Also, these innovative and exciting projects. For example recently I found out about Ames – Planetary Skin

    http://www.planetaryskin.org/

    I found it in this very good article:

    http://www.readwriteweb.com/ar....._web20.php

    NASA has to work on advertising these great projects. They also have to make excellence the nominal, not the exception.

  6. Rolando Quintanilla  on April 9th, 2009

    I just wanted to clarify something. I think the majority of the problems that NASA has are systematic and not the direct fault of individuals. NASA has many great people that work here, but systemic problems don’t allow these people to be used effectively.

    I don’t know who is responsible for the problems, but our leadership is responsible for fixing them. Being a leader isn’t easy, so the decision to become a leader should not be taken lightly.

    I think that when people take higher positions they should balance the decision to take the job with the amount of responsibility that is associated with the job. I agree with the old-timers who think you have to pay your dues. Even if I don’t always seem to show it :) .

    That being stated there are some people who are really just that good (I am not referring to myself) — people that are the analogous equivalent to Lebron James for example. People like this should not be held back if they are found. However, Lebron was not good enough to go to the NBA as a 9th grader, he did pay some dues.

    RQ