Innovation through Architecture
With so much attention on growing our economy through entrepreneurial innovation, I decided to explore how people of influence - venture capitalists seeking start-ups, for instance - define innovation.
This Fall I enrolled in a MOOC (massive open online course) run by edX called "Innovation and Commercialization" and taught through MITx with two MIT professors in their business school. At first it was difficult to understand though incredibly fascinating, exploring the fundamental mechanics of the innovation process. But as time passed, it dawned on me: I already knew this stuff. This is what we as architects do on every single project.
The mechanics are based on the iterative process - that the innovator has an idea, which is then fine tuned through a very specific and precise dynamic, iteration upon iteration, until the final product is realized. For the MITx professors, it came down to three parties in the iterative process: technology - the bright idea; the market - how can we sell it?; and implementation - how do we make it happen. According to the MITx guys, the iterative process begins with one of these which is then tested against the others, fine tuned, and then tested again.
If it begins with technology, it's perhaps some sort of scientific idea that is breakthrough, but whose market or implementation possibilities are sketchy; or an idea generated by the market for which the technology and the implementation have not not been developed; or by an implementation technique that is discovered, but has no market or technology to take advantage of it. It is in the interaction of individual people from each of these sectors through which an effective innovation can be evolved.
But isn't this architecture? You have the architect who has what he feels is an innovative idea; you have the client/developer who has identified a particular business opportunity; and you have the contractor who understands how to get a project built.
But as we know by looking around our cities, it's not any interaction of these three players that produces something interesting; the MITx professors also say that what makes any innovation really work is when each of the interactors has some knowledge of the other two sectors. Only then can the aggregate ramifications of changes suggested by all sectors be grasped, thus making progress possible.
In architecture this simply means that the best buildings occur when an architect has some awareness of budgeting and construction methods; when a client/developer has some sense of what makes good design as well of the limits of his contractor; and when a contractor is able to comprehend the architect's intent as much as he is able to adhere to the client developer's budget and schedule.
The question is, if the innovative process is ingrained within us, why aren't there more architects becoming entrepreneurial innovators?
With so much attention on growing our economy through entrepreneurial innovation, I decided to explore how people of influence - venture capitalists seeking start-ups, for instance - define innovation.
This Fall I enrolled in a MOOC (massive open online course) run by edX called "Innovation and Commercialization" and taught through MITx with two MIT professors in their business school. At first it was difficult to understand though incredibly fascinating, exploring the fundamental mechanics of the innovation process. But as time passed, it dawned on me: I already knew this stuff. This is what we as architects do on every single project.
The mechanics are based on the iterative process - that the innovator has an idea, which is then fine tuned through a very specific and precise dynamic, iteration upon iteration, until the final product is realized. For the MITx professors, it came down to three parties in the iterative process: technology - the bright idea; the market - how can we sell it?; and implementation - how do we make it happen. According to the MITx guys, the iterative process begins with one of these which is then tested against the others, fine tuned, and then tested again.
If it begins with technology, it's perhaps some sort of scientific idea that is breakthrough, but whose market or implementation possibilities are sketchy; or an idea generated by the market for which the technology and the implementation have not not been developed; or by an implementation technique that is discovered, but has no market or technology to take advantage of it. It is in the interaction of individual people from each of these sectors through which an effective innovation can be evolved.
But isn't this architecture? You have the architect who has what he feels is an innovative idea; you have the client/developer who has identified a particular business opportunity; and you have the contractor who understands how to get a project built.
But as we know by looking around our cities, it's not any interaction of these three players that produces something interesting; the MITx professors also say that what makes any innovation really work is when each of the interactors has some knowledge of the other two sectors. Only then can the aggregate ramifications of changes suggested by all sectors be grasped, thus making progress possible.
In architecture this simply means that the best buildings occur when an architect has some awareness of budgeting and construction methods; when a client/developer has some sense of what makes good design as well of the limits of his contractor; and when a contractor is able to comprehend the architect's intent as much as he is able to adhere to the client developer's budget and schedule.
The question is, if the innovative process is ingrained within us, why aren't there more architects becoming entrepreneurial innovators?
