Featured Cause
-
End Homelessness
- 2404 Members
- 2186 Actions
- $205 Dollars Raised
End Homelessness
We need to harness the creative imaginations of all americans as individuals and collectives to overcome the great challenges of our time. We know we need to do this, but do we know how?
Yes. We can:
- help leaders articulate the need for innovation and focus American's creative energy on the areas that matter most and can most benefit from creative solutions
- help individuals collaborate to come up with even better ideas than they already have or could come up with on their own
- manage ideas and the innovation process so that the most promising ideas are identified, and the very best implemented successfully
- engage more and more americans in contributing creatively to solving our challenges
What we want: to participate in and/or lead an innovation task force or innovation department to bring this about.
This is what makes America great - and different - our capacity to come together to solve tough challenges. And now we're going to help make that capacity even greater - in areas where innovation is critical to the priorities of our nation.
It is time for those of us who are experts at corporate innovation to serve the greater good of our nation and participate in this exciting and important time in history. And we believe that this administration, more than any that has come before, is not only open to this idea but wants it. It's what the whole campaign promised - and delivered.
It's time now to come together to do what none of us can do alone.
Note: The top ideas will be determined through two rounds of voting. In the 1st round, ideas will compete against other ideas in the same issue category. The 1st round ends on 12/31, and the top 3 rated ideas from each category will make it into the 2nd round. The 2nd round of voting starts 1/5/2009, and each qualifying idea will compete against the qualifying ideas from all other categories. 2nd round voting ends on 1/15/2009.
59 older comments, see the full discussion ^
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best ideas
for change in America. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the Obama administration
just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to
turn each idea into actual policy.
Click here to view the Ideas homepage »
First round voting for the Ideas for Change in America Competition closed at midnight on December 31, 2008.
This idea finished in 11th Place in Other category.
Only the top three ideas in each category make it to the final round, but we encourage you to continue raising awareness about this idea by sharing it with your friends.
I think this is a great idea. I'd like to see such a department pull together the existing threads on this idea that are floating out there now, such as the National Innovation Initiative (http://innovateamerica.org/index.asp) and the Senate bill S. 3078, introduced last June by Susan Collins (R Maine) and Hillary Clinton. S 3078 proposes "to establish a National Innovation Council, to improve the coordination of innovation activities among industries in the United States, and for other purposes" (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3078).
It's early days yet for this bill, so there's plenty of time to participate in the conversation. Let's get started!
Posted by Renee Hopkins Callahan on 12/01/2008 @ 01:45PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
As the state Economic Development Director for Rhode Island I wholeheartedly endorse this idea. We must make innovation central to our economic future. We need to confidently reposition our economy to produce higher wage job opportunities for all of our citizens. It is important to bring focus and resources to strengthen our innovation capacity including stronger platforms for: discovery research, new company creation and entrepreneurship, and to enable all organizations public and private to create new products, services, and business models.
The department must have a division that focuses on business model innovation and enabling system level experimentation and change. Solving the real issues of our day including healthcare, education, public safety, and quality of life will require new networked business models that can only be accomplished by creating safe environments for system level experimentation across sectors and silos. We have started a non-profit to enable collaborative innovation called the Business Innovation Factory (www.businessinnovationfactory.com )
It is game time and a federal department of innovation would be a good start. Sign me up to help.
Saul Kaplan
Posted by Saul Kaplan on 12/01/2008 @ 03:26PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I echo the idea that innovation must have a focus and I believe that the focus of government-sponsored innovation must be on sustainability -- at every level from individual to global.
Nothing else matters if we don't have a planet capable of supporting (human) life.
Posted by Duffy Brook on 12/01/2008 @ 03:48PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a wonderful idea that can work if it is willing to use the current models already available, such as a systemic change approach: a multi-pronged effort to provide leadership training and grantmaking/fundraising models, in the areas of environmental, educational, and economic reform, with a strong focus on public policy. This Department could follow the wonderful systemic change model created by the Women's Foundation of California.
Posted by Nicole Maron on 12/02/2008 @ 08:43AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
We currently have grantors who fund innovations such as The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Skoll Foundation. There is some agreement among them about different tiers in the innovation process that a Federal program could share. The initial phase explores of new possibilities that are disruptive to incumbent enterprises and not tolerated as skunk camps, pilot projects, research projects or test markets within their domains. The second phase involves a proof of concept via iterations of working prototypes to identify the best approach, eliminate weak compromises and debug the design flaws. The third tier takes a viable model into a growth phase, scaling up the small prototype into a value chain, delivery system or replicable package of tools. Breaking the innovation process into these phases avoids over-subsidizing vaporware while keeping incentives in the mix to bring the new solutions into full market adoption.
Rather than rely on a panel of expert judges to award the grants, the selection of which innovations to move forward could be crowdsourced, like the voting on this site and the T shirt designs at threadless.com. Grant submittals would then enter the public domain with a Creative Commons License allowing derivative works. Thus the submittals could spawn more variations in the new solution and speed the refining of the innovation before any funding is provided. A culture of innovation would occur in the voting, comments and next generation submittals for each innovation.
Posted by Tom Haskins on 12/02/2008 @ 09:04AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I think a Department of Innovation, as a top down approach, would be a good complement to the bottom up approaches taken by many here making contributions.
Posted by Jason Stoll on 12/02/2008 @ 11:34AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Innovation is a Survival Skill. From the individual to the global, we can innovate our best, every day:
* when we know we can, being free from trained-helplessness;
* when Leadership and Collaboration unite.
Innovation in government reached breakpoint in 1776 forming the U.S.A. Let us take responsibility for breakpoints in 2008 to 2108 with a focused innovation initiative!
Corporations and organizations have successfully focused skilled innovation professionals to facilitate invention and change of products and services. They know they can. Government leaders, collaborate and tap innovation skills to tackle our country's challenges. I vote, Yes.
Posted by Suzanne Chilton on 12/02/2008 @ 11:43AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
If you want to kill innovation, this is the way to do it. Americans are innovative already. We don't need to kill innovation by having ignorant bureaucrats telling us what we need. Read MIchael Polanyi.
Posted by Troy Camplin on 12/04/2008 @ 05:51AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Troy, I don't disagree with you that government can screw things up -- but I do disagree that that means we don't need this. The fact is that there are a number of levers available to push innovation forward in this country and make it easier for us all to be more innovative that only government can pull. If we can put together a Department of Innovationthat works, then that's the best option.
Posted by Renee Hopkins Callahan on 12/04/2008 @ 08:12AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
We have a well-oiled innovation engine that runs just fine without much "help" from the Government - it's called venture capital. I think the best way government could help drive innovation is by providing the right kind of incentives to entrepreneurs and VCs alike so that this engine keeps running at maximum speed. This would include keeping capital gains tax rates in check and providing incentives in certain sectors like Cleantech to ensure a reasonable floor in base energy and carbon costs.
Posted by Andrew Clark on 12/04/2008 @ 12:16PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Creativity is a vital twin which enables Innovation to thrive. And nothing builds personal engagement in a team or process more than being part of a successful innovation that started with your own creative idea. One creative idea transformed can lead to others until a self sustaining process has started.The Department of Innovation (DOI) must become the clearinghouse for successful ideas and the innovations that grow from them; to ‘spread the good news’ and encourage others.
Posted by Jim Casto on 12/05/2008 @ 06:24AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
how about take government out of the mix.... altogether.
I just put a hho generator in my van, it used to get 23 mpg
it now gets 34 mpg, so my question... Why not just tell the world about hho generators?
Because the government has laws about saying hhos can get your car better gas mileage in a advertisement. And they can't be sold commercially because of laws.
But why? Because our Government is so obviously corrupt that the oil companies call the shots.
First step, Get the government out of business. Second step... allow business to succeed.
For another example, ask why I can't put a wind mill up on my property.
Posted by John Jay Myers on 12/05/2008 @ 07:47AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Happy New Year
12/5th/2008
To my Fellow Social Entrepreneurs
RE: "Ideas for Change in America." OBAMA’s CALL
You have My VOTE & Support
HELP Me Also Change America for Americans!
May I have YOUR VOTE & Support? I wanted to see if I could get your HELP and Encouragement.
I've submitted an idea and wanted to see if you would VOTE for it. My title is:
VAMS Vehicle Alert Messaging Systems
You can read and vote for the idea by clicking on the following link:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/vams_vehicle_alert_messaging_systems
The top 10 ideas are going to be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day and will be supported by a national lobbying campaign run by Change.org, MySpace, and more than a dozen leading nonprofits after the Inauguration. So each idea has a real chance at becoming policy.
Thanks for Your REVIEW,
Nadine/EnigmaNetxMy Additional URLs:http://www.youtube.com/EnigmaNetx4
http://www.ireport.com/people/EnigmaNetx
Posted by Nadine Laws on 12/05/2008 @ 04:36PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
For those who think is an oxymoron, this is one of themore practical and most effectives ideas out there. Other countries recognize and fund individual creativity and encourage organizational innovation. America, well, does not. Instead we as a culture are effective at killing the potential of ideas. There needs to be a paradigm shift.
Posted by Aaron Gilbee on 12/05/2008 @ 08:51PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Start with a BIG IDEA and it may stand up to wasted time, indifference, and ignorance, fragile in a cold, cruel world of non-intellectual pursuit, driven by instant gratification and the onslaught of another dark age yet upon us.
Posted by Matthew Storey on 12/06/2008 @ 07:32AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
A not so innovative idea but one must start somewhere
So far all I have read is how happy everyone is in joining the innovation club. I have seen few if any serious proposals this far. Basically what I see is the collapse of free enterprise because of excessive selfish greed that went beyond the individual. The free markets served their purpose for a good century but like any frozen organization nothing can exist forever without periodic adjustments required by the evolution of its society.
Here is an initial set of necessary steps. The preceding financial establishment must be eliminated before a new crop of publicly supervised would-be managers replaces them according to the following general principles. Also we do not need to re-invent the guillotine the way the French did for their super debauched rich nor do I propose an Cultural Revolution in the Chinese style.
First there’s a need to establish what is a sensible income. A sensible salary is one to minimally sustain a family of 3, a team of husband, wife & child. On that basis subsequent salaries must be figured for incrementally higher positions. However, for 50 workers to support a CEO salary is unacceptable in a country that abolished slavery, even paid slavery, some time ago.
Questions such as to how much one can eat more than one’s salary will arise. So the supervisor or more responsible position may be able to eat twice, thrice or quintuple the basic amount etc. After all, life amounts to a physical survival under humanitarian conditions, which also means satisfaction in one’s employment.
One of the prerequisite would be to make a list of the mega-millionaires that ripped off this country, bring them to court to see whether there was excessive manipulation of their exorbitant salaries, bonuses etc. Then jail those that abused their positions for 10 to 25 years and after dispossessing them of their stolen wealth by redistributing it to the worker from whom it was stolen. I bet had this application of justice happened during the Savings & Loans debacle of the1980’s, the Enron, Edison of the late 1990’s little of what happened in the last 10 years would have been possible or at least not on such grand scale.
In the interests of fairness, these workers lost at least not only 1/3 or more of their savings but also 1/3 of their retirement comfort. These people are also humans, with spouses and children in need of various support, it is not the wealthy only that should be able to afford sending their children to the pricey universities and swim in champagne baths, and lose 1/3 of their millions and laugh it off.
I realize that the proposed steps may be elementary in their initial thinking but it would be a start. Basically we cannot afford to keep the old guard in charge receiving bailout money from the very people they robbed.
But what it’ll take is guts from Main Street to start a momentous change to their lives.
My first answer is that I drove over 60 miles per gallon in a 2-HP, 2-seater Citroen, mass-produced in 1950. What have you got to say to that Mr. Detroit?
Posted by Alex Nodopaka on 12/06/2008 @ 09:39PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said.
Take a look at Energy, Jobs and Environment.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/energy_jobs_and_environment
Posted by Larry Tholberg on 12/07/2008 @ 08:27AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I want to step back and take the meta-position that this whole Change.org method for suggesting important changes in government policy is NOT WORKING.
This method resembles a supermarket's "Good Ideas" board or company "Suggestion" box, with the addition of (a) wandering, often off-topic commentaries and (b) tabulation of votes for ideas (and implicitly, against as measured against other topics) on grounds unknown.
Those of us who are professional innovation managers and consultants know that the "Suggestion" board or box is a failed innovation method. The ideas that result range from the practical to the inane, though all are sincere. The voting on ideas, however, has little to do with the suitability of an idea to circumstances, its compatability with how policies are made, or whether in fact it is even implementable by government policymakers, directly or via politically active communities. The voting is mostly emotive. Also, it is stacked. The categories chosen by the Transition Team are indicative of its own vision of government, not necessarily how the people see it. Where, for example, are "Civil Liberties," "Population Growth," or "Chaos in Africa"? In "Other," I guess. An idea posted a category with few ideas (an indicator of low popular appeal) has a better chance of making it into successive rounds of consideration than an idea in a large category (one with considerable popular appeal). Being posted in a big category is tantamount to an idea probably not being considered, per the rules.
Take our own idea of creating a Department of Innovation. Despite the fact that this is allegedly an organized exercise in innovation, remarkably the Department of Innovation must be discussed in the "Other" category. There is no "Innovation" category. The Other category -- three or four times any other category in size -- is the category for anything that doesn't fit the Transition Team's image of policy management as it will take place in the federal government following the Inauguration. It is where radical, rather than incremental, innovations are being proposed. In other words, it is where the new Administration's greatest interest should be focused, because this is where ideas offering the greatest gains are to be found. Of course, there is in Other also a lot of dross that needs filtering -- but not 250 of 253 ideas!
Most "Other" ideas have little chance of being implemented, not because they are necessarily unworthy, but because (1) they have no constituency in the incoming Administration as demonstrated by the listed categories; (2) they should be in another category, but aren't because of a poster's whim or strategy; or (3) simply, the Other category contains too many ideas all competing for the lead positions.
For example, all of the category Human Trafficking's five ideas qualify for second-round consideration, despite having many fewer votes than the Department of Innovation. Yet although the DOI has three times as many votes as the highest ranked Human Trafficking idea, because we are only number six among 253 ideas, many good, we are not eligible for second-round consideration.
Let's take a look at the top five ideas in the Other category. (We are number six.) They are:
1. Appoint a Secretary of Peace and create a Department of Peace and Conflict Resolution
2. Repeal the Patriot Act
3. Restore separation of church and state
4. Appoint a scientist to head NIST
5. End the war on drugs
No. 1 may be practical. But who can see into the President-elect's mind or fully appreciate the power of the military-industrial-financial complex? In any case, doesn't it belong in Foreign Policy?
No. 2 is possible -- and should be in a "Civil Liberties" category. But that category doesn't exist.
No. 3: It's already in the Constitution. Executive orders of the Bush Administratio n enabled "faith-based" -- i.e., church -- organizations to distribute federally funded benefit. They can be repealed. Even after these orders are repealed, IF they are repealed, however, separation of church and state relies more on public opinion and the courts than on anything the Administration can do. Not an innovation.
No. 4 is a special pleading. NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It sets standards for everything made or used in the US as well as participating in international forums that do the same globally. Why a scientist is necessary to head this agency is unclear? Wouldn't an engineer do as well? Or a telecommunications network manager? Or anyone with a respect for technology? This idea is simply a plea not to have anti-scientists heading up government agencies. It belongs in Government Reform.
No. 5 is totally commendable, but is it an innovation? And doesn't it belong in Government Reform or Criminal Justice or the missing "Civil Rights"?
To conclude: this Change.org process' flaws are manifold. Change.org gives the sense of participating in shaping policy, but in fact it's as productive of serious innovations and reforms as American Idol is of performance and entertainment: pop songs. And the method of evaluation is equally as naive.
This outcome was not and is not the goal of the Transition Team. It is, however, the inevitable result of creating an innovation program without consulting experts in the field: a high-school popularity contest. The People's Choice, a contest that reifies the status quo, whatever is best promoted in the media.
I hope the Transition Team will read this and, not just reply but reconsider REFASHIONING THE WHOLE INNOVATION PROCESS and MAKING IT CONTINUOUS, so that it too can be improved as we go along. That way, new ideas can regularly be put into the pipeline with a reasonable expectation that they will get serious consideration -- no matter how unfamiliar to current policymakers -- and possibly implemented.*
Thanks for your time to share my concerns. -- Bob Jacobson, Tucson, AZ, and Vedbæk, Denmark
--------
* Every idea posted to Change.org should be required to have an implementation plan, however basic, indicating that the proposer has (1) studied the issue, even a little; and (2) thought about how government can implement the innovation. That's Innovation Management 101.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/07/2008 @ 11:57AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
We have too many Departments as it is. There are plenty of innovative people at the working level in government and industry. Work on a public policy that will give them a greater opportunity to express themselves.
Posted by Hubert Flomenhoft on 12/07/2008 @ 05:04PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Bob, I agree with you completely! I sent a much briefer email to the support folks on the web site, but I highly recommend you take your comment and email it separately as well.
Posted by Alain Rostain on 12/07/2008 @ 07:45PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Woww....That mast be a great idealIn my opinion, innovation is highly related with changing. To be survive organization should be dinamic, creative and of course continuely innovate. I will be gladful to be a part of this idea.
Posted by Agni Adiyanto on 12/08/2008 @ 07:52AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I couldn't agree more on this revolutionary idea, I have been saying this to friends for years. This is really good to see someone highlight one of my original ideas. I really give you a lot of credit on this and I am wishing you much success with this major and revolutionary proposal. My vote will definately go towards supporting this idea and to make sure it becomes a reality, and will mandate sweeping changes in the way America churns out it's innovation. If this new Department of Innovation becomes a reality, I really would like to see this department aggressively fast track the implementation of nanotechnology into everyday applications. Imagine roads with nano sensors imbedded into the tar, these sensors will sense fractures, cracks, leaks and and send data to construction workers on which roads need fixing exactly. I mean can you imagine how much money the U.S. government can save every year if we had such a technology that precisely pinpoints exactly which roads need repairs and which roads don't. Take this a little further, imagine pipes and underground systems that control our water supplies and electricity, just imagine how much money can be saved if we are able exactly pinpoint exactly where the problem areas are. Yes we can America !!!
Posted by Wade Hutchinson on 12/13/2008 @ 01:04AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Nanotechnology will continue with or without voting for or against it. The problem of congestion spells exactly the problem to be addressed: excessive number of brontosauruses on roads & the perceived need to expand our roads.
They are the very problems to be reduced. We should start with the monstrous energy inefficient, ecologically polluting trucking industry & end with the personal SUV horse. MASS TRANSIT is the answer or MASS POPULATION CONTROL. PERIOD.
Posted by Alex Nodopaka on 12/13/2008 @ 09:27AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
We need to assure that our inventors are immune from frivioulous law suits
Posted by Don Westerdale on 12/15/2008 @ 03:46AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Assure our inventors from frivolous law suits?
rotflmao
Must we also insure the frivolous inventions?
These one liners must stop here. I'd like to see some solid proposals on how to save the free market Ponzi scheme!
The solution is FAITH. We must re-establish the belief in our system before it unravels any further. I propose that starting January 1, 2009 everyone stops their mortgage payments for one month and let's see what happens.
Make sure you spend that month's allowance wisely. Like going on an immediate cruise but make sure to charge it to American Express. I think Dubai owns them.... lol
Posted by Alex Nodopaka on 12/15/2008 @ 10:38AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I looked on Wiki and the level of personel debt is supposed to increase 600 percent thru 2080 the economy is going to get worse now I'm a retired Gen USN like I commented before to Obama yes there is a way out of this changes have to be made for business here in the USA and globally but I dont work for free buy the way what happens when the new cars battery's need replaced at 15 grand there just like the ones in laptops and cell phones the Navy stop using them long ago for that reason I can make ones that last 20 plus years but have gotten no responce no interest from Barack what's up the Navy has has alot of technology but it's being sat on! The Navy went nuclear why the ships reactor last 25 years I can make small ones for cell phones even or ones that last 100 years we can even make subs go 4 times faster yes it matters I'm 99 percentile top of my class that is how I got the Gen rank! President's dont always listen! I hope to be one one day but they hate my frankness!
Posted by Shawn Puckett on 12/15/2008 @ 06:15PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lets not fix a problem with another layer of Bureaucracy. What really needs to be done is transforming the antiquated goverment IT acquisition processes and enforce existing policies that are not being implemented effectively; E-Gov Act, OMB A119, NTTAA, and most significantly the Clinger Cohen Act. The Office of the Secretary of Defense CIO is supposed to be channel for innovation, but instead, is a huge rice bowl run by major defense contractors who have no motivation in leveraging the innovations of the market. The revolving door prevents any change and protects abuse of authority to make sure the innovators are not given any face time or visibility. Trust me, many have tried to fix this problem, and all have failed due to a few corrupt officials who have achieve the pinical of the Peter Principle.
Posted by John Weiler on 12/16/2008 @ 06:43AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
As a Systems Engineer with close to 30 years of experience, and 12 patents and 9 more pending, I can tell you that innovation does not need yet another goverment office. Politicians and CEOs are not the industry innovators even though they take the bulk of the credit, but engineers are. If the problem that we are trying to fix is innovation in the US, then there are a few fundamental problems we need to fix.
When I hire onto a company, I have to sign over all of my intellectual rights to the company as a pre-condition to being hired. In turn, I am told that if I innovate something that I will be compensated for it. But as an engineer, one can't get a job without signing one of these agreements.
One of my notable inventions was one-touch dialing for cell phones. (US patent 5,491,745) Every cellphone manufacturer has to pay the company I worked for a royalty to include that feature into their cell phones for 17 years. This invention is still to this day worth millions of dollars to the Japanese company I worked for. However, I as an engineer am not paid any reocurring royalties for my inventions but only a small pittance for my talent. My total compensation for this invention that is in every cellphone in the world - $300. Publishing a patent is very difficult work and comes with very little reward to the engineer. Successful music artists get compensated for their talent. But in this country, employees of companies are not.
Why do I bother with the patent process? Patents are part of your career - the part you can take with you unlike your job which stays at work when you go home at night. It establishes my worth to the company and demonstrates my ability to innovate. Am I being compensated for being experienced? Probably not.
Why not quit and form your own company? Well, these agreements generally state that anything you invent on your own time is theirs and anything you invent one year after working for them is still theirs. It takes a substantial amount of capital to start a business on your own. Sometimes an idea like one touch dialing when cellphones were still mounted in trunks of cars and in bag phones is not enough to start a whole new company.
If you want to solve the innovation problem in this country, change the laws allowing fair compensation for inventors. If an invention is successful, then the inventors should be fairly compensated through continuing royalties. Encourage a science education rather than handing out tons of sports scholarships. Reward successful employees fairly for their innovations. Best yet, the US should require completion of high school and encourage at least two years of junior college, community college, vocational school, or university for those that can pass an entrance exam.
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/16/2008 @ 08:23AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Innovation is about more than products and more than engineering, more than invention. It is about fostering a culture of positive, productive change along the entire "value chain" in business and in the public sector. Creating infrastructure to support innovators -- social, organizational, technological, procedural, political, and financial -- is the act of sustained innovation. It needs a champion at the highest level to succeed.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/16/2008 @ 10:38AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert,
I fail to understand how a government bureaucracy will champion innovations. I see it as yet another for government corruption, under the table payoffs and other kinds of crooked deals. I really have lost a lot of faith in government over the last 8 years. Sole-source contracts awarded to companies of cronies, government officials that fail to show up for congressional hearings and a Senate seat in Illinois for sale is in my opinion the tip of the iceberg of the corruption we face in this country. I don't think we need to add to the pile of ethics violations or corruption.
Product development types often have great ideas and have a great handle on the value chain, but don't have the technical know-how to even predict feasibility. In my experience, very few products originating from a marketing or product development team ever receive patents. Do you really believe that innovation comes from the top?
Help me understand your viewpoint better. How does a government bureaucracy create infrastructure to support innovators? What specific changes would you want to see? Please detail your claims a bit better with some examples.
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/16/2008 @ 04:18PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Total cynicism regarding government means that Change.org is essentially worthless, that our ideas are pearls thrown before swine. But we're here, aren't we? So maybe your disregard isn't total. Also, note that many of the 3,000-plus innovative ideas here on Change.org aren't about technology per se: they're also about innovating our healthcase and education systems, indeed innovating the way we engage with the world. Innovation is not restricted in its application to the material world; it also applies to social and even personal phenomena. You probably innovate in some way nearly every day; we all do, especially in these changing and challenging times. Some do it better than others. We can all use help.
If you want to see how governments champion innovation, just look to Northern Europe (especially UK, Germany, Holland, and the Scandinavia nations), South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Israel, and India. I won't go into depth in each case, but I suggest that you do. Governments can't do it all, but they can do a lot. It will show you that things can be different, given the proper motivation and leadership. Here's a good place to start re Europe, the ProInno Europe portal: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/. Closer to home, here's Innovatoin Canada: http://www.innovationcanada.ca/.
In response to your specific question about innovation leadership: yes, it does come from the top. Read Procter & Gamble CEO A. G. Lafley's GAME-CHANGER (http://www.amazon.com/Game-Changer-Revenue-Profit-Growth-Innovation/dp/0307381730) written with Ram Chandran. Or Richard Branson's LOSING MY VIRGINITY (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-My-Virginity-Survived-Business/dp/0812932293/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229475200&sr=1-2). Successful cultures of innovation without exception require a champion at the top who will identify, nurture, and protect the individual or group proposing a change -- and the bigger the change, the higher up the champion. In the case of the USA today, where solutions consist of cutting the interest rate to zero or as you point out, trading on the public's goodwill for personal profit, innovation will have to come from O himself. For Barack to succeed as the Chief Innovator, he needs a support team. Hence, the Department of Innovation. FDR had one, only it was called his "brain-trust."
BTW, if you want to stay up on exciting innovation developments n a daily basis, subscribe to Experientia's excellent blog, Putting People First, edited by Mark Vanderbeeken (http://www.experientia.com/blog/). Forget the "government bureaucracy" buzzword and start reading about companies and governments working together are creating the infrastructure to support innovation -- especially "green" innovation. It may surprise you, but we Americans tend to think ours is the only experience and thus, when we look outward, we are surprised frequently.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/16/2008 @ 05:08PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Total cynicism regarding government means that Change.org is essentially worthless, that our ideas are pearls thrown before swine. But we're here, aren't we? So maybe your disregard isn't total. Also, note that many of the 3,000-plus innovative ideas here on Change.org aren't about technology per se: they're also about innovating our healthcase and education systems, indeed innovating the way we engage with the world. Innovation is not restricted in its application to the material world; it also applies to social and even personal phenomena. You probably innovate in some way nearly every day; we all do, especially in these changing and challenging times. Some do it better than others. We can all use help.
If you want to see how governments champion innovation, just look to Northern Europe (especially UK, Germany, Holland, and the Scandinavia nations), South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Israel, and India. I won't go into depth in each case, but I suggest that you do. Governments can't do it all, but they can do a lot. It will show you that things can be different, given the proper motivation and leadership. Here's a good place to start re Europe, the ProInno Europe portal: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/. Closer to home, here's Innovatoin Canada: http://www.innovationcanada.ca/.
In response to your specific question about innovation leadership: yes, it does come from the top. Read Procter & Gamble CEO A. G. Lafley's GAME-CHANGER (http://www.amazon.com/Game-Changer-Revenue-Profit-Growth-Innovation/dp/0307381730) written with Ram Chandran. Or Richard Branson's LOSING MY VIRGINITY (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-My-Virginity-Survived-Business/dp/0812932293/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229475200&sr=1-2). Successful cultures of innovation without exception require a champion at the top who will identify, nurture, and protect the individual or group proposing a change -- and the bigger the change, the higher up the champion. In the case of the USA today, where solutions consist of cutting the interest rate to zero or as you point out, trading on the public's goodwill for personal profit, innovation will have to come from O himself. For Barack to succeed as the Chief Innovator, he needs a support team. Hence, the Department of Innovation. FDR had one, only it was called his "brain-trust."
BTW, if you want to stay up on exciting innovation developments n a daily basis, subscribe to Experientia's excellent blog, Putting People First, edited by Mark Vanderbeeken (http://www.experientia.com/blog/). Forget the "government bureaucracy" buzzword and start reading about companies and governments working together are creating the infrastructure to support innovation -- especially "green" innovation. It may surprise you, but we Americans tend to think ours is the only experience and thus, when we look outward, we are surprised frequently.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/16/2008 @ 05:08PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
This is better left in private hands! Government agencies create an enormous amount of waste and are extremley inefficient! Did we already forget the lessons of the Soviet Union?
Posted by Ryan Acosta on 12/16/2008 @ 07:32PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi! My name is Michael Bivens and I am the inventor of the first Self Recharging (NiMH) and Lithium Ion batterys.This new technology will help Americas car companys like GM and Ford be number one in the market.Putting this battery in hybrid cars means there will be no need to use gas to power the car or a electrical outlet to recharge the battery,it recharges itself. This new battery technology can be made for all electronics and will make Billions of dollars and create jobs.There is one problem,I can't get in contact with the CEO's to give them this battery technolgy.If you can, give me a call or give them my number at 708-991-2747. Help your self and the economy!
Posted by Michael Bivens on 12/16/2008 @ 11:02PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
The last two postings speak volumes about continuing to repeat old canards about governnment "waste" and warnings about becoming a "Soviet" society. Meanwhile, good ideas go unheard and the banks and other private-sector failures, proven to be inefficient and a drain on the society, get $700 billion more to reward their CEOs. It's time for a change.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/17/2008 @ 07:09AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I am in complete agreement about not only the ineffiency of banks but I also question their usefulness. Any street hoodlum can learn in a few weeks what an MBA cannot teach in 4 years that their business is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul with an extra fractional percent for enticement. The banking business, simply put, is the original pre-Ponzi scheme. I suggest the elimination of 95% of their managerial functions & limit their transactions to monetary transfers. We do not need CEO's bilking society of millions of dollars with yearly salaries that take a normal employee a lifetime to earn. The banking business has barely any socially redeeming functions.
Posted by Alex Nodopaka on 12/17/2008 @ 07:41AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert,
I'm really not interested in following the thread into the Banking discussion, but I wanted to get back on topic with your idea.
Those sites are pretty interesting. I found the ProInno Europe site to be more informative than the Canadian one. However, what is still not clear to me is how a Innovation Czar and a department of people can help foster innovations. What it sounds to me is that some well connected entrepreneurs may be able to develop some innovation that perhaps a university created.
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/17/2008 @ 12:29PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Konrad, we should take this offline. Feel free to send me a private message. The first thing to do is to read up on innovation management, which is a legitimate profession with actionable, tested methods. It's not about political connections and all that type of stuff. Once you assume that that's all the Department is about, of course it's meaningless. But then, so is our conversation. If you can grok that overseas governments have made a difference, then you can imagine how ours might do the same. You keep throwing out disparaging remarks like "Innovation Czar." Everyone in the field knows you can't have an innovation czar and succeed. First get some knowledge about the subject at hand, then offer criticisms. That's my advice, and it's no innovation. Okay, I'm taking a time out.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/17/2008 @ 03:05PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
If there was a way to vote against an idea, I'd vote against this idea. If there was a way to rate the ideas - 5 stars with 5 being the best, I'd give this idea a 1 - or zero if possible.
The only thing innovative this government has ever done was to invent the way to economically destroy it's own people while telling them "it's good for you".
This idea of a government Czar of Innovation is a classic. Everything this government (and it doesn't matter whether it's R or D) destroys everything it touches. What will happen with a Czar is that a lot of money will be spent on the politically connected who will produce nothing for it - but a country transformed into the COMMUNIST Chinese system. But then that might be your goal with the idea. I know there certainly are a lot of supporters for it (Ref: global transportation system, economic development zones, cradle-to-grave human resource management system, etc.)
Posted by Vicky Davis on 12/18/2008 @ 07:28AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Innovation is always good, but it happens better in a free market. The government needs to end all of its economic meddling, not expand the bureaucracy.
The government's only job is to protect the rights of the citizens, and it only gains its power from their consent, according to the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by Daniel Hunnicutt on 12/19/2008 @ 12:33AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
im not talking about fear of a communist government...im talking about government waste in general...i only mentioned the soviet union because literally every single form of output was government controlledthe products where shotty, projects moved slowly, and a massive amounts of waste and shortages from coffee to shoes!creating a "department of innovation" would only creat another wastefull beuracracy... not to mention redundant...the government already gives LARGE Research and Development (R&D) subsidies... California ALONE spends 43.9 BILLION on R&D... i got that number from a government website. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/databrf/nsf01320/sdb01320.htm
Posted by Ryan Acosta on 12/19/2008 @ 01:16AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert,
I'm fairly familiar with Innovation Management within the company I work for. But what I don't get exactly is how a Department of Innovation would work with industries.
For example, in a recent YouTube address, Barrack Obama says that America should again lead the world in broadband penetration. He would like to see true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.
Yes, innovation is needed to bridge the last mile gap. However currently the last mile gap is very much controlled by regulations on easement rights. Those easements are not free and open, but are very much controlled by massive monopolies - local power companies, Telcos (AT&T and Verizon) and cable companies (Comcast and Warner Cable). Wireless technologies exist, but the biggest limitations are electrical power and backhaul which is still dominated by the Telco monopolies. City-wide Wi-Fi failed due to these limitations.
So how would a Department of Innovation help a small competitive startup company to bring broadband to their community?
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/19/2008 @ 06:23AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Daniel,
Free markets are nice if they really existed. It's my experience that the large corporations that dominate this country are very much the same people that create regulations to protect their monopolies (or oligopolies) from competitors. They don't want free markets or competition and work hard to eliminate them.
Do citizens have the right to create innovative products or services? Is this not part of the freedom of enterprise? Should that right be protected?
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/19/2008 @ 06:50AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Go to
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/doi_-_department_of_innovation
and read the description over there and vote. Hopefully, this suggestion can make it past the elimination round.
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/19/2008 @ 07:40AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
If the government stayed out the of economy, the big corporations wouldn't be able to lobby (bribe) politicians into making regulations to perpetuate their monopolies.
The important thing, though, is that the government is not authorized to create a department like this by the Constitution.
Posted by Daniel Hunnicutt on 12/19/2008 @ 09:33AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2.
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, <b>and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.</b>
There is no explicit Constitutional authorization for the existence of Secretaries of Defense, State, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, Education, Health and Human Servicies, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, the Interior, the National Security Advisor, or any other Cabinet-level appointments. The President can create appoint new officers (and to serve them, departments) in any capacity so long as the Congress approves, hypothetically including a Secretary of Innovation.
Posted by Robert Jacobson on 12/20/2008 @ 10:40AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert and Konrad
I understand your stances especially with the realisation that innovation most often begins from a single person. The problem I see is that the "special interest" lobbyists have overpowered our elected officials into changing America's Patent Laws to the point that they(the big ones) can simply say that they were already working on the same invention (innovation) and then simply drag out the court case till the real "time" honored inventor has to give in (penniless) a la Apple v's Burst.com. So where is this going to go if we don't first repeal and reexamine America's Patent Laws that President Bush's controllers instigated. The first words out of President Bush when he was ruled president were "The economy is bad" and with that the economy started to slow down so that old businesses could start buying all these fledgling small Internet and software companies that were threatening their old money (remember the Internet Bubble). They bought those companies and squashed a lot of good ideas.
A lot of innovation monies go to universities to supposedly do research in certain fields but their researchers are still not thinking out of the box. Government should empower and protect the inventors first with small amounts of money so as to allow that inventor to formulate AND protect he's invention and then let the "Free Market" decide whether it was good or useless. Remember one thing, America was built on things well done and lasting, now we want cheapness and variety all for the sake of surviving BETTER but that is not sustainable.
Also, if another country makes a more efficient product don't hamper them from introducing it into America. Don't hamper Global Innovation, common-sense is often the main part of innovation and that is what big corporations and special interests have little of.
Our Politicians need too much money to be elected and that is why they go with "special interest groups" so that they can pay for their "election". Well President Elect Obama showed US that WE are a more powerful special interest and what we need to do is lower those costs so as to keep on finding more Innovating Politicians...
Posted by Jean-Luc Giraud on 12/21/2008 @ 03:06AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Another <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/do-we-need-innovation-department/">proposal for a Department of Innovation</a> is described here (as formulated by faculty at the University of California, Davis).
Posted by Andy Revkin on 12/21/2008 @ 05:51AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Jean-luc,
The Department of Innovation is needed mainly because the supporting innovation function is scattered all over the place throughout government. By bringing all of the pieces together into one place, perhaps the tools to manage innovation can be be centralized so that at least the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Patent law - yes Patent laws give monopoly powers to businesses in exchange for teaching the public the spec (invention). The specs are written for maxium claim and minimum teaching. On the other hand, technology is moving so fast that the technology is obsolete by the time the patent is issued. If you watch who killed the electric car carefully, you will see that it was Chevron-Texaco locking up the patent for the large format NiMh batteries. etc.
Unfortunately, it takes oversight to ensure that money is spent wisely. This country is learning the hard lesson that things cannot go unmanaged as well as over-managed. Free markets are theoretical and don't work well in real life. Under the free hand of the market model, corrections are made by catastrophic losses after the damage has already been done and the free hand does not learn from its mistakes. Innovation money has to be carefully managed for the same reasons. You can't really throw around a lot of innovation money and hope something comes out of it. There have to be goals and deadlines. If they are not met, then no more money on that project.
Yes, I believe that short-sightedness wipes out a lot of common sense. Part of the tactics versus strategic mistakes come from the way our tax codes and accounting rules are written. It causes unnatural distortions between CapEx and OpEx. R&D projects are not deductible whereas production products are. This causes a bad R&D decision often not to be reversed early. If your first prototype of something fails and you need to build a second one, the first prototype is not tax deductible and the second one (because it's part of getting to a production model) is. This puts a heavy penalty in the very early innovation stages on errors. But in fact, it's cheaper to make mistakes early.
I fully agree that we the people must become the government's primary special interest again.
Posted by Konrad Roeder on 12/22/2008 @ 08:04AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
We need a Department of Innovation – I would like to offer the Metabolic Health Chart (MHC) as an important candidate for a first Innovation Project. (search for “Metabolic” to vote on the MHC).
Anyone who says that the free enterprise (capitalism) system, as it currently exists in our culture, is the answer to providing the highest and best goods and services to our culture does not know what they are talking about. They cannot have tried to implement an idea and failed in spite of how good or necessary and profitable the idea, as I have. I have the experience of creating and marketing a medical service called the Metabolic Health Chart (MHC), that is absolutely astounding in it’s benefit to individuals and their medical care.
We could not implement this amazingly useful preventive tool because of the limitations we found in the free enterprise system of US medical care. Free enterprise works extremely well in many cases but it cannot avoid the limitations of the inherent “profit” motive that also prevents good ideas from being implemented in our system. The Metabolic Health Chart is based on standard medical lab blood work, processed by a patented data evaluation technique, correlated to a statistically significant number of samples – we had over 5 thousand samples – and presented both in tabular and a visual graphic form designed to communicate the results to laymen and medical professionals alike. It presents a picture or “chart” of a person’s metabolic health from the lab results. It is a sensitive detection tool that indicates pre-symptomatically any off-normal metabolic indication present at the time of the test. We had correlated more than 50 “diseases” to MHC indications and were on the way to correlating more when we ran out of funding. Subsequent MHCs allow tracking of a persons health and any changes.
The benefit of having an objective scientifically based screening, detection, tracking and prevention tool where there is only subjective – how one is ‘feeling’ - now is powerfully preventive and permits economics not currently available in the medical care field.
Following the logic through the evaluation, acceptance and implementation of ideas we found the free enterprise system is based mostly on profit in the short term. It has limitations of only working with “known” technology to avoid risk and is therefore prevented from trying anything “new”. Other barriers we found include – the attitude by medical professionals of.. “..why should I adopt something new, my practice is very busy and profitable the way it is?” Other barriers include laws preventing a person from being their own doctor – legally, only ‘Doctors’ can order lab blood work and diagnose a ‘disease’.
I think we are seeing a paradigm shift in the medical field with tools like the MHC leading the way for the betterment of all mankind. We definitely need a Department of Innovation and the MHC needs to be one of the first Innovation programs from it. Our country and all mankind will be healthier for the effort.
Posted by Charles Adams on 12/24/2008 @ 09:56AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.