The lecture for today is about 'Novelty, Creativity, Innovation and Invention'.
Basically, Novelty is the quality of being new, it means something new. Novelty can divide to two part which is objective and subjective. Subjective novelty is the perception of something as being new by an individual person or a group of persons. Objective novelty is something that is new for all humanity in its development through ages. It is unlikely, however, that even the most knowing and knowledgeable person boldly say that he knows everything that was before and take liberty to judge things from this standpoint.
(Although it may be said to have an objective dimension (e.g. a new style of art coming into being, such as abstract art or impressionism) it essentially exists in the subjective perceptions of individuals.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty
Appeal to Novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- X is new.
- Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the novelty or newness of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something older. This is made quite obvious by the following example: Joe has proposed that 1+1 should now be equal to 3. When asked why people should accept this, he says that he just came up with the idea. Since it is newer than the idea that 1+1=2, it must be better.
This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for many reasons. First, "western culture" includes a very powerful committment to the notion that new things must be better than old things. Second, the notion of progress (which seems to have come, in part, from the notion of evolution) implies that newer things will be superior to older things. Third, media advertising often sends the message that newer must be better. Because of these three factors (and others) people often accept that a new thing (idea, product, concept, etc.) must be better because it is new. Hence, Novelty is a somewhat common fallacy, escpecially in advertising.
It should not be assumed that old things must be better than new things (see the fallacy Appeal to Tradition) anymore than it should be assumed that new things are better than old things. The age of thing does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context).
Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that his day old milk was better than his two-month old milk, he would not be committing an Appeal to Novelty. This is because, in such cases the newness of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the newness is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html
A professor is lecturing to his class. Prof: "So you can see that a new and better morality is sweeping the nation. No longer are people with alternative lifestyles ashamed. No longer are people caught up in the outmoded moralities of the past."
Student: "Well, what about the ideas of the the great thinkers of the past? Don't they have some valid points?"
Prof: "A good question. The answer is that they had some valid points in their own, barbaric times. But those are old, mouldy moralities from a time long gone. Now is a time for new moralities. Progress and all that, you know."
Student: "So would you say that the new moralities are better because they are newer?"
Prof: "Exactly. Just as the dinosaurs died off to make way for new animals, the old ideas have to give way for the new ones. And just as humans arebetter than dinosaurs, the new ideas are better than the old. So newer is literally better."
Student: "I see." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html
Innovation and Invention
- Invention if the formulation of new ideas for products or processes
- Innovation is all about the practical application of new inventions into marketable products or services
Most of us have visions of mad inventors who come up with ideas with no practical use! Like everything else in Business Studies, we are interested in activities that actually help a firm meet its objectives, such as growth, profitability, increased market share or stability – so it is Innovation, rather than Invention, that really counts.
Innovations can fall into one of two categories:
Product (or service) innovation
As the name suggests, this is all about launching new or improved products (or services) on to the market.
Advantages might include (note links to marketing)
- ‘First mover advantage’ – which can include some of the following;
- Higher prices and profitability
- Added value
- Opportunity to build early customer loyalty
- Enhanced reputation as an innovative company
- Public Relations – e.g. news coverage
- Increased market share
Process Innovation
This has to do with finding better or more efficient ways of
- producing existing products, or
- delivering existing services.
Advantages might include:
- Reduced costs
- Improved quality
- More responsive customer service
- Greater flexibility
Possible drawbacks
- Loss of jobs, especially if work is outsourced
- Need for re-training of workers
http://tutor2u.net/business/production/invention-and-innovation.htm
The Difference Between Innovation And Invention
For all the talk about protecting innovation, we've often pointed out that the patent system seems to do the exact opposite -- making it more difficult for those who are actually innovating, while giving money to those who haven't done anything at all. Last year, Michael Schrage wrote an interesting piece pointing out the very important differences between invention and innovation, where he noted that innovation is more important -- but the patent system is more about protecting invention. Basically, plenty of people or companies who "invented" an idea were never able to capitalize on the idea at all. It took others who actually innovated and built off that idea to make a product that actually had an impact on the world. Helping to prove that point are a bunch of example cases where the initial inventor of something wasn't the one to make it valuable. In a market driven economy, the real winner is the company that can make something valuable through innovation -- not the inventor who happens to come up with something that the market may or may not want.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050322/1528251.shtml