Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« The entrepreneurial personality | Main | The Irony Bowl, III: Putting the burden for change where it belongs »

January 04, 2011



Organic chemistry fits into your persistent solution in search of problem framework, because organic chemicals are never made to order, rather they are discovered.

In pharma, making a problem stick to a solution is the point of clinical trials. Statistical studies and not an understanding of the underlying science drive the whole show.

In other industries, concepts are placed into conceptualizations and then into a lexicon before those concepts are realized in any way. Technology adoption starts when you find an early adopter willing to insert the concept into their problem space. Moving out to the bowling ally, the concept reaches into many different problem spaces. It's not enough to solve a single problem, or to find a single problem.

Thanks for sharing your framework.

Paul Hudnut

I learn a lot from reading your blog. This is one of the most provocative posts to date. You have moved way up the watershed of the innovation stream of thinking.
Jim Collins struggled with this same issue in his first book- the puzzle that despite what B-school profs say, there are lots of examples of "technology in search of a market" start up successes. This is generally attributed to particularly persistent entrepreneurs eventually discovering/stumbling into a market. But maybe that's not right.
Do you have an opinion on the types of innovation that fall into "problemizing a solution" vs. "solving a problem"? Any big cuts, such as "technology innovation" vs "biz model innovation" or "sustaining"/"disruptive"/"catalytic"? Maybe we need to create a 2 x 2 soon!

The comments to this entry are closed.