|
Innovators in science, business and invention
Two  innovators in the field of computers -- experimental innovator Grace Murray Hopper (right) and conceptual innovator Bill Gates (left) -- demonstrate how seekers and finders differ in the interlinked fields of science, business and invention.
Hopper was in her mid-40s when she automated the nuts and bolts of computer programming, joining together a bunch of software routines that she had collected. In doing so, she created the first compiler, building on her decades of experience in math and computers. She described the achievement not as a breakthrough based on a brilliant idea, but as a short-cut she pursued because she was lazy. She followed a similar path in her 50s, when she helped invent the COBOL computer language, which also saved time by translating computer routines into relatively simple English commands. At that time, she had been working with computers for decades.
In contrast, Gates made his breakthrough at age 19, with colleague Paul Allen, 22, near the beginning of his career, buil ding on his quick insight into the new dynamics of the computer software market. The idea behind his innovation was key – a realization that the computer marketplace was about to undergo a radical change, and the crucial role that the computer’s operating system would play.
As a young concep
tual innovator, Gates soon surpassed older computer entrepreneurs who had made their own radical innovations when they were younger. Ken Olsen, for example, the 31-year-old founder of Digital in 1957, had revolutionized the computer industry in the 1960s by producing minicomputers that sold for a tenth the price of IBM’s main frames. But in middle age, he didn’t conceive of the changes that were about to transform the industry. “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home,” he declared in 1977, at age 51. As Gates recalls, “Olsen’s vision faltered … and part of his legend now is that he is the man famous for repeatedly, and publicly, dismissing the personal computer as a passing fad. I am sobered by stories like Olsen’s. He was brilliant at seeing new ways of doing things, and then—after years of being an innovator—he missed a big bend in the road.”
Similar patterns are visible in the world of pharmacology, where the approach of experimental innovator Elizabeth Hazen differed from that of conceptual innovator Lewis Sarett.
At age 66, Hazen discovered nystatin, the first useful fungus-killing antibiotic, with colleague Rachel Brown, 53. She made her discovery near the end of her career, building on years of experience and accumulated knowledge, eventually reaching her goal after working her way through hundreds of trial-and-error experiments. The expertise that she put into her experimentation was key to her success. The idea behind her work was relatively simple: explore a new field of research, seeking a new compound similar to what had been found in already-explored terrain -- a fungus-killer with powers like the bacteria-killers found by Selman Waksman and, before him, Alexander Fleming.
In contrast, Lewis Sarett created synthetic cortisone on the basis of a flash of insight into the structure of the cortisone molecule. He received a patent for it at age 27, two years after getting his Ph.D. and joining Merck. The breakthrough idea came to him after his boss suggested that Sarett might not be qualified for his new job at Merck. Both he and Sarett were frustrated that Sarett couldn’t find an oxygen atom “at the C-11 position on the steroid molecule,” where an expert claimed to have inserted it. Then, Sarett recalled:
“One day, my boss paid me a visit. ‘You haven’t made much progress, have you?’ I’ll always remember his exact words.
“ ‘No,’ I admitted.
“ ‘Maybe Merck isn’t the company for you,’ he continued. ...
“This chilling suggestion sent me into shock, but it also jarred loose a wild idea: maybe the premise was wrong! I thought the unthinkable. Perhaps the famous authority had erred. Perhaps the oxygen (we knew it was there somewhere, due to elemental analysis) was not on the site I was investigating! I spent a nerve-wracking weekend in the lab, trying to reverse the assignment and prove the elusive oxygen was not at C-11.
“ By Sunday night, I'd pinned down the errant oxygen atom. It was, in fact, at the adjacent position C-12, so there was a good reason why I'd failed to find it at C-11.”
No one has yet devised and implemented a statistical study of different types of inventors and business innovators, as David Galenson has done for the arts. But some of the same patterns are evident, including conceptual geniuses like Gates and Sarett, who made their breakthroughs at a young age, and older innovators like Hopper and Hazen, whose achievements were based on experimentation and persistence.
The following chart lists contrasting characteristics of inventors and entrepreneurs who are seekers and those who are finders.
|
|
SEEKER
|
FINDER
|
|
|
Experimental innovator
|
Conceptual innovator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archetype
|
Old master
|
Young genius
|
|
Prime example -- computers
|
Grace Murray Hopper
|
Bill Gates
|
|
Prime example -- drugs
|
Elizabeth Hazen
|
Lewis Sarett
|
|
Quote
|
“(A)ttempts to isolate antifungal agents are now in progress.”
-- Elizabeth Hazen
|
“Paul and I looked past the limits of that new chip and saw a different kind of computer that would be perfect for us, and for everyone – personal, affordable, and adaptable. It was absolutely clear to us that because the new chips were so cheap, they soon would be everywhere.”
-- Bill Gates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Characteristics
|
|
|
|
When they typically do their best work
|
Later in career.
|
Early in career.
|
|
Length of time devoted to creating their best work
|
Extended period leading up to top achievements, requiring patience and persistence.
|
Sudden conceptual breakthrough, followed by implementation..
|
|
Subject matter
|
Seekers tend to be more common in development of new drugs and consumer products.
|
Finders tend to be more common in development of machinery, computers, and electronic equipment.
|
|
Their methods
|
They work inductively – from the bottom up – creating products or organizations on the basis of extended observation and experimentation, often extending or consolidating previous work by others.
|
They work deductively – from the top down – creating products or organizations that embody new ideas or new deductions from general principles.
|
|
Characteristics of artistic innovators, but not of inventors or business innovators
|
|
Their goals
|
Lofty but hard to describe. The career of a seeker is often spent in pursuit of a single ambitious, vaguely defined objective.
|
Specific. Goals for a particular work can be stated precisely in advance.
|
|
How they prepare
|
They rarely do preparatory work because each piece leads to the next.
|
They often do preparatory work.
|
|
How they evaluate their work
|
The imprecision of their goals leaves them troubled. They doubt the significance of their achievements. They are perfectionists, often frustrated.
|
Because each work has a precise goal, they are often satisfied in having achieved it and then move on to other goals.
|
|
