Experientia | michele.visciola@experientia.com
[ 1] Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., and Feldman, M. Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981.
November + December 2009
[ 2] Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. L’evoluzione della cultura. Milan: Codice edizioni, 2004.
interactions
We very much like stories of products and services that show the advantages of people-centered innovation approaches over pure technological innovation. In our community it is widely recognized that those companies who take on a people-centered approach are more successful on the market.
But what really differentiates people-centered innovation approaches from technology-centered innovation models? This is an ongoing debate that has so far produced useful reflections and insightful methodological improvements in our practices, but not a lot of conclusive insights.
I would like to add my own observations to this debate by looking at how the theory of biological evolution can aid the understanding of the evolution of culture and therefore better mark the possible paths that human-centered innovation can take.
Inspired by the work of geneticist Cavalli Sforza, who shows how biological evolution can be used to explain cultural evolution [ 1, 2], I have developed a conceptual framework to explain how human-centered innovation occurs within cultures.
I hope that my analysis will contribute to the understanding that innovation normally requires more than just a group
of innovators who transform previous conditions. Biological evolution shows us the many evolutionary variations on innovation that a given culture can manifest, besides those initiated by smart innovators.
In order to frame innovation strategies, we need to investigate the evolution of cultures. When we pursue people-centered innovation strategies, we do in fact determine possible directions of cultural evolution. This is the key differentiating factor between technology- and people-centered innovation cycles.
In the former case, either there is no vision of the possible evolutionary forms that the innovation strategy can shape, or the vision is too simplified. The Homo economicus is one of the dominant rationales of the technology-driven innovation approaches, and it contrasts with the Homo biologicus vision of the people-centered ones. In the first, human behaviors and choices are simply driven by the expectation to get more. Innovation for the Homo economicus is based on the desire to reach a more advantageous position.
In the people-centered vision, however, human behaviors are driven by actions and routines that sustain people’s aspirations to improve their living conditions and to reduce pos-
sible loss in their daily lives.
Yet user-centered design (UCD) strategies can also fail cultures, either by missing opportunities or by embracing untested assumptions. Therefore, the most difficult challenge for any innovation strategy is to understand cultures so that it can bring about meaningful change.
There are two polar approaches to people-centered innovation. On the one side, there are those people-centered processes that build on an understanding of existing cultural values and belief systems to provide the conditions for positive emotions and for behaviors to grow more tuned to given contexts of use. Here, innovation is incremental and corresponds to evolution paths that select “natural” directions for a large user base.
Examples of this process are the Apple’s iPod and iPhone, which were introduced as incremental innovations within existing categories of products. Some more radical innovations from the same company, like the Lisa computer in the early 1980s and the Newton PDA in the early 1990s, were not so successful, even though they too targeted a large base of customers. Why Apple could not find the right innovation path by following a radical approach
References:
Archives