Futuring and Innovation: Serendipity, error and exaptation.

            Innovation comes in different forms. This discussion will cover the following: a) serendipity, which is discovering something excellent or useful when you are not seeking it, b) errors, which is finding innovation by mistake, c) exaptation, which represents innovation modifying, adding to, or repurposing an innovation to achieve something new.

The microwave is an excellent example of serendipity. Copeland (2019) talked about the discovery of H. pylori and its relationship to ulcers. The author describes the two main events in a discovering process. The first event is the observation of bacteria in the stomach, and the second event is the discovery of how to cultivate the bacteria in the lab. Copeland (2019) mentioned that warren was not searching for bacteria in the stomach when he discovered it. He discovered it while examining gastric specimens with a microscope magnification strong enough to make bacteria visible.

A good example of discovery by error is penicillin. According to Donnelly (2012), Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin after he left a pile of dirty Petri dishes at his workstation before going on vacation. After Fleming returned from his vacation, while sorting through the dirty petri dishes to salvage some of the dishes, he noticed an area of a dish that was not covered in bacteria. He concluded that the mold had blocked the bacteria from spreading and that he could use this discovery to kill a wide range of bacteria. Thus, penicillin was discovered (Donnelly 2012). A similar experience also happens in video games (fighting games) where you mean to make a move and find a new one by mistake.

            Exaptation happens a lot in the computer software industry. An example is developers that will utilize the capability of one software to create a new one that has a different purpose. An example is the Nmap tool that is used in other software. In medicine as well, exaptation can be considered typical because researchers can improve or modify known medications to cure new diseases. Kastelle (2010) shared the example of GroundProbe, a radar technology equipment that was intended to be used to locate underground pipes and power cables turned out to have a lot more use, such as monitoring the stability or rocks walls in mines (Kastelle 2010).

The discussion covered different types of innovations, such as serendipity, error, and exaptation. The student shared some personal experiences related to the various innovation topics and explains what these words mean the student’s point of view.

 

 

Reference

Copeland, S. (2019). On serendipity in science: discovery at the intersection of chance and wisdom. Synthese, 196(6), 2385-2406.

Donnelly, T. (2012). 9 Brilliant Inventions Made by Mistake. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/tim-donnelly/brilliant-failures/9-inventions-made-by-mistake.html

Kastelle, K. (2010). Innovation through Exaptation. Retrieved from https://timkastelle.org/blog/2010/05/innovation-through-exaptation/#:~:text=An%20example%20of%20exaptation%20is,complex%20structures%20come%20to%20exist.

Planning and Forecasting

 

Any organizations must be able to look at the past to improve the present to look at the future to understand upcoming trends that could affect a specific industry. Different techniques have been used throughout the years for organizations to imagine a possible future and prepare accordingly. For this discussion, we will look at scenario planning and traditional forecasting. The discussion will talk about the relationship between scenario-type planning and planning and innovation for change. IT will also cover the different forces involved and the impact that they make. The discussion will also cover how students can use scenario planning for future innovation efforts, and whether scenario plans account for the social impact of change.

Schoemaker (1995) described scenario planning as a disciplined method for imagining possible future that companies have applied to a great range of issues. Forbes (2015) added to this definition by stating that in scenario planning, scenarios are alternate futures in which today’s decision may playout (Forbes 2015).

On the other hand, we have traditional forecasting that is defined by Posadas (2017) as the use of historical observation to evaluate future business metrics such as inventory, asset performance management, budgets, and revenue (Posadas 2017). There is a lot of concerns about the use of traditional forecasting or the misuse of scenario planning.

An example of poor forecasting and improper use of scenario planning is apple’s 2014 iPhone sales. Singh (2014) explained in his article that traditional forecasting methods do not account for changes in customer requirements (Singh 2014). Scenario planning, on the other hand, explores the impact of various uncertainties (Schoemaker 1995). Those uncertainties include customer’s behavior. Customer behaviors are hard to predict, but with proper scenario type planning, organizations should be able to explore different future scenarios and prepare themselves accordingly. Scenario type planning support planning and innovation because it helps the organization plan its future by looking at various uncertainties. Looking at different future scenarios allows organizations to develop new ideas that could lead to innovations.

In this example, the force that was not considered by apple was the social force. The organization should have regarded as social behavior as it relates to its customers. Taking social trends, customer’s preferences, and requirements into consideration when forecasting would have prevented apple from missing their estimate.  The social force was critical in this case. It shows the importance of acknowledging the different strengths that may affect the future of an organization. Another external force to consider is competitors. Apple neglected other products that were in the same price range or cheaper that provided similar technology.

Scenario planning can be beneficial if used properly. Schoemaker (1995) described a process for developing scenarios that can be used as a basis for scenario planning. The process is as follow:

 

1-     Define the Scope: Set the time frame and scope of the analysis while accounting for the rate of technology change, product life cycle, political elections, competitor’s plan, etc.

 

2-     Identify the Major Stakeholders: Who are the people that will have an interest in these issues? Who could influence them?

 

 

3-     Identify Basic Trends: Identify the political, economic, societal, legal, technological trends can affect each scenario

 

4-     Identify Key Uncertainties: Those are uncertainties that could have a critical effect on the scenarios that are currently being investigated.

 

 

5-     Construct Initial Scenario Themes: Construct the scenario after trends and uncertainties are identified

 

6-     Check for Consistency and Plausibility: Sorting trends and removing the trends and uncertainties that do not fit.

 

 

7-     Develop Learning Scenarios: Identify themes that are strategically relevant and then organize the possible outcomes and trends around them.

 

8-     Identify Research Needs: After developing learning scenarios, it is crucial to look for blind spots, such as understanding how stakeholders will behave when facing any of the methods.

 

 

9-     Develop Quantitative Models: Revisit the scenarios and decided whether to include the use of qualitative research in the process.

 

10- Evolve toward Decision Scenarios: Review the entire process to ensure that the selected scenarios address issues faced by the organization (Schoemaker 1995).

 

As described above, it is essential that scenario planning accounts for the social impact of change. Scenario planning is a comprehensive process. An organization’s scenario planning should explore all forces that could affect the future of the organization. It is the organization’s responsibility to look at all forces in all scenarios before making decisions.

 

References

Forbes (2015). Scenario Planning and Strategic Forecasting. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/01/08/scenario-planning-and-strategic-forecasting/#372ef6d3411a

Posadas, S. (2017). When traditional forecasting doesn’t fit. Retrieved from https://clockwork-solutions.com/traditional-forecasting-doesnt-fit/#:~:text=Traditional%20forecasting%2C%20using%20historical%20observations,asset%20performance%2C%20budgets%20and%20revenue.&text=Yet%20traditional%2C%20historical%20forecasting%20attempts,averages%2C%20and%20smooth%20out%20variability.

Schoemaker, J. (1995). Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/scenario-planning-a-tool-for-strategic-thinking/

Singh, S. (2014). iPhone Sales: The Failure Of Traditional Forecasting Methods. Retrieved from http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2014/01/iphone-failure-traditional-forecasting.html#.X0erU8hKhEZ

Predictions that came true

 

    It is important to try to predict or forecast the future because of all the benefits that is offers, whether it is business prediction, weather or technology forecast. This discussion focuses on forecasting and predictions that came true. The following paragraphs will look at Nikola Tesla’s impressive and accurate prediction.

    Nikola Tesla was a Serbian-American scientist that is mostly known for designing the alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. He was known to speak eight languages and held about 300 patents in his lifetime. In the early 20^th century, home telephone was a fairly new technology it is around that time that Nikola Tesla had his prediction about cellphone. In 1909, in an interview with John B. Kennedy, Tesla stated that "When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket (Chong 2015)." This statement is so accurate that it speaks for itself when we look at the ways we are using cellphones nowadays. To be able to accurately describe the future like Tesla did is the beauty of prediction and forecasting.

    The first force that influenced the success of this prediction is the technological force. Telsa was a scientist that was constantly looking to innovate. His technical experience helped him visualize things that could be possible using technology. Using his background and looking at things that he was able to accomplish, Tesla was able to accurately predict the future of the telephone.

    The second force is the social force. Telsa witnessed the popularity of the telephone. He was aware of society’s need and probably realized that being able to carry such device will change society for the better.

    This discussion covered Nikola Tesla’s prediction about cellphones. After reading his statement during his interview with John B. Kennedy, Tesla’s idea was very accurate as if he saw the future in his dream.

 

References

Chong, C. (July 6, 2015). The inventor that inspired Elon Musk and Larry Page predicted smartphones nearly 100 years ago. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-predicted-smartphones-in-1926-2015-7

Scenario planning versus traditional forecasting

    Attempt to predict the future can be beneficial in many situations. This discussion will talk about two methods that can help gather ideas on where the future could go. Traditional forecasting and scenario planning are the two techniques that the debate will cover. The text will compare and contrast the two concepts then thoroughly explain the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of scenario planning versus traditional forecasting.

    Scenario planning is making presupposition on what the future will be and how your environment will evolve (Mariton 2020). Hernandez (2018) mentioned in his article that scenarios are not predictions; they only highlight different ways the future may unfold. He also added that a vital scenario planning requirement is to acknowledge that it is impossible to know the future, but people want to know where the future will unfold. The article talks about ten steps to help build scenario planning: Framing the challenge, gathering information, Identifying driving forces, Defining the future’s critical “either/or” uncertainties, generating the scenarios, Fleshing them out and creating storylines, validating the scenarios and identifying future research needs, Assessing their implications and defining possible responses, identifying signposts, monitoring and updating the scenarios as times goes on. It is also vital to consider brainstorming to understand the driving forces involved in this process, as well as determine and understand the critical uncertainties in the future. The group will then select the top two uncertainties to model the most extreme cases of each outcome “either…or…”. Some of the advantages of scenario planning are that it focuses on the top two most critical uncertainties to drive simplicity. Scenario planning helps you concentrate on the players in each situation, such as competitors, customers, suppliers, employees, key stakeholders, etc. A key disadvantage of scenario planning is that it is more time consuming than traditional forecasting (Hernandez 2018). 

    Traditional forecasting focuses on historical and current data to predict the future. Hernandez (2018) described traditional forecasting as “extrapolating where you were and where are you are now into the future, and at the end of this extrapolated line this is “the most likely scenario.” Traditional forecasting also focuses on mathematical formulations. Traditional forecasting is beneficial when working on steady states. According to Posadas (2017), traditional forecasting is useful when exploring systems like modeling the lunch rush throughout a cafeteria or predicting the number of tellers needed at a bank. It becomes limited when applied to complex systems such as segmentation. Regression, trend model, moving average. Another limitation of traditional forecasting is that it relies entirely on historical data when researchers found that the past does not equal the future. Another concern is that only one set of historical data exists because it is impossible to repeat the history to generate new data (Posadas 2017).

    This discussion covered scenario planning and traditional forecasting. The text defined the two concepts and talked about the pros and cons of using each concept. 

References

Mariton, J. (March 9, 2020). What is Scenario Planning and How to Use It? Retrieved from https://www.smestrategy.net/blog/what-is-scenario-planning-and-how-to-use-it

Hernandez, M. (January 27, 2018). Traditional Forecasting Vs. Scenario Planning. Retrieved from https://mkhernandez.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/traditional-forecasting-vs-scenario-planning/

Posadas, S. (August 22, 2017). When traditional forecasting doesn’t fit. Retrieved from https://clockwork-solutions.com/traditional-forecasting-doesnt-fit/

Accidental Innovation

Innovation is usually thought of as the perfect research that resulted in a life-changing discovery. But, in reality, innovation can be the result of an accident or an unexpected event. This discussion will focus on innovations that were triggered unexpectedly or by accident. It will cover two game-changing ideas that came from an error or accident. The discovery of the drug Viagra as well as the discovery of Play-Doh falls into that category.

 

Bessant (2018) explained in the book that accidents can trigger innovation, creating new avenues to explore. There are many examples of accidental change. The first innovation that we will cover is the discovery of Viagra. In the late 1980s, Pfizer, one of the world’s premier pharmaceutical companies, was researching and testing compound UK-92,480 or Sildenafil that was expected to treat angina (Bessant 2018). Osterloh (2015), in the article How I discovered Viagra explained that after creating UK-92,480 tests shows promising outcomes, so Pfizer’s group of researchers were optimistic. That is until further proof proved that on some volunteers, the inhibitor had a short time effect and side-effects that were undesirable. The researchers also discovered that UK-92,480 could increase nitrate’s impact, which could result in low blood pressure. The following result reduced the likelihood of UK-92,480 becoming an angina treatment.

 

On the other hand, increased erection was being reported by many participants, so the team decided to focus their research on erection dysfunction. Around the same time, studies conducted by other researchers had information about the biological pathway involved in the erection process that turned out to be helpful to the Pfizer’s team. After learning from other researchers, the group decided to run pilot studies with patients with erectile dysfunctions. About twelve years after the project started, the team was confident that they had enough information to confidently discuss the best dose and the drug’s safety and effectiveness. That is how Viagra was created (Osterloh, 2015).

 

The second innovation that we will discuss is Play-Doh. Kutol Products was a company facing difficulties trying to sell a paste invented in the 1930s that will clean dirty wallpaper discolored by soot and coal fire residues. In the 1950s, there was a change in home heating techniques that started the end of coal-fire for heating and subsequently meant the end of the kutol’s business. The organization was facing bankruptcy until children discovered the potential of using the paste as a molding clay toy. Nowadays, we can find Play-Doh in every household.

 

One of the forces that drove both of those innovations is the situational force. In the Viagra case, as Pfizer realized that UK-92,480 wasn’t going to be the treatment for angina, other researchers studied the erection process. At the same time, many participants were reporting back Pfizer about their rectal anomaly. This situation allowed Pfizer to seize the opportunity and switched their focus to finding a cure for erectile dysfunction.

 

The other force involved in those innovations is the social force. Kutol Products was having problems selling their products because of new discovery that put the coal-fire for house heating out of business, and during that same period, children realized how fun it was to play with Play-Doh. Society was a factor in this innovation. If children did not like playing with Play-Doh and realize how fun it was, Kutol would have been bankrupted (Bessant 2018).

 

Innovation can be unexpected or come from a well-designed process. This discussion covered accidental innovation. The text gave two examples of innovations that were unexpected. Innovation that started from failure to accomplish the initial goal.

 

  

References

 

 

Bessant, J.T. J. (2018). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Enhanced eText. [Colorado Technical University (CTU)]. Retrieved from https://coloradotech.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781119379416/

 

Osterloh, I. (2015). How I discovered Viagra. Retrieved from https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/how-i-discovered-viagra/

 

Group Decision-Making Methods

    Group decision-making is when individuals collectively analyze alternative solutions and make a final decision by selecting one of the given alternatives. Group decision making can be a complicated process. That is the reason why researchers have looked into different methods that help coordinates and sometimes simplify the group decision-making process.

    According to RAND (n.d.), the Delphi method is a commonly used technique that “entails a group of experts who anonymously reply to questionnaires and subsequently receive feedback in the form of a statistical representation of the "group response," after which the process repeats itself .” The process described by RAND repeats itself until the experts can choose from the different alternatives presented (RAND n.d.). The Delphi method allows for the diversification of the experts selected to participate. It is also advantageous because there is no need for personal interaction. After all, participants have to remain anonymous. One disadvantage of the Delphi method is that it does not offer a live participant discussion.  (Anand 2019).

    Harvey and Holmes (2012) mentioned that the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is also a commonly used group decision-making technique. Both the Delphi and the NGT techniques ask for experts' opinions on a given topic or situation. The difference between the two is the key feature of NGT, which is face-to-face meetings (Harvey, N., & Holmes, C. A. 2012). Anand (2019) stated that the NGT is an alternative form of brainstorming in which group members suggest ideas and alternative solutions to a situation. The experts then discuss those ideas or solutions to understand the feasibility, possibility, and desirability associated with them. One benefit of the NGT is that it allows more passive participants to voice their opinion. It is a combination of individual and group decision making. A disadvantage of NGT is that the technique cannot address more than one problem at the time. A second disadvantage relates to the fact that this technique doe not encourages for discussions, which causes ideas to not fully develop. Anand (2019) also stated that the Delphi method “lack clear methodical guidelines(Anand 2019).”

    This discussion described two of the group decision-making techniques, the Delphi and the Nominal Group Technique. The main difference between the Delphi technique and the Nominal Group Technique is that Delphi ensures that participants do not know each other. Keeping the participant anonymous ensures that the stronger ones do not influence the passive participants. Both the Delphi and the NGT are commonly used nowadays. Deciding what technique to use will depend on the situation faced by the group and the type of result expected

References

Harvey, N., & Holmes, C. A. (2012). Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. International journal of nursing practice, 18(2), 188-194.

RAND. (n.d). Delphi Method. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html

Anand, I. (June 2019). 7 Ready To Implement Group Decision Making Techniques For Your Team. Retrieved from https://upraise.io/blog/group-decision-making-techniques/

Welcome to the ScholarFuturist blog!

Hi All,

I am very excited about starting this blog. I am a doctoral candidate in cybersecurity and information assurance with a passion for research. I am continuing my doctoral journey learning about furturing and innovation. An exciting class where I am hoping to develop my understanding of futuring and the state of mind needs to be able to innovate. In my spare time, I like to read cybersecurity news, play video games, play soccer, or basketball when I get the chance. This blog will mostly be about the different futuristic ideas in cybersecurity or information assurance. It will focus on information technology innovations and futuristic designs. I hope you enjoy visiting my blog.