Skip navigation

Tag Archives: innovation

Date
September 15, 2012

Mark Metherell is health correspondent

View more articles from Mark Metherell

 Australia’s knowledge economy is flexing its muscles in a host of highly successful biomedical industries, writes Mark Metherell.

textGaining perspective … blind woman Dianne Ashworth received an implant last month.

Amid the gloom surrounding Australia’s struggle to sell its manufactures overseas, who can name our top manufactured exports? The winning merchandise tends not just to be made in Australia, but invented here, too. The products come from a clean, smart industry. Its leading players are barely household names and there are many other smaller enterprises whose output sells around the world.

We are talking about the biomedical industry, which in recent years has risen to top place among Australia’s elaborately transformed manufactured exports, leaving cars and wine far behind.

Whether it be an underarm gel to treat grumpy old men, a device to correct sleep disorders, a transforming treatment for head lice or a product to reverse dental decay, this country’s biomedical inventions are earning a significant slice of the $4 billion Australia earns in exports from pharmaceutical and medical gadget exports.

textVisionary … Bionic Vision Australia’s bionic eye. Photo: AFP/Bionics Institute/Bionic Vis

This week’s announcement of a significant advance towards a bionic eye follows the international success of the Melbourne-developed bionic ear, the centrepiece of the hugely successful multinational Cochlear company, now generating $1 billion in sales.

It used to be argued that Australia was strong on medical ideas – thus six Nobel prizes for medicine – but weak on taking the idea from the laboratory to the bedside. But in the past two decades, a sea change has come. Besides Cochlear there are CSL and Resmed and they all ride significantly on local expertise. CSL is the plasma and vaccine conglomerate which in recent years mass produced the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, created by Australian Ian Frazer and his team.

ResMed, which is now based in San Diego but was born of the pioneering design of Sydney University’s Professor Colin Sullivan of a device to beat obstructive sleep apnoea, still drives much of its research and development in Australia.

But who knows that the worth of Australia’s publicly listed biomedical companies is actually higher on a per capita basis than is the case for such companies in the US? Australia’s higher input is despite a much lower level of venture capital investment compared with the US.

The paradox is that despite Australia’s relatively golden performance, the nation appears to display scant interest in its home-grown smart performers glowing in the sophisticated arena of medical research and development.

The biotech industry blooms, while the heavily-protected car manufacturers struggle to survive and the winemakers prosper behind a defensive tax regime.

Little-known Australian companies such as Pharmaxis are scoring international approvals and sales for its medications for lung disease, and opening factories in Australia too. Its products include Bronchitol, developed in Australia and offering a new treatment for cystic fibrosis, one of the world’s most common life-shortening genetic diseases.

Another rising star is Acrux, which has gained a world reputation for its products, developed by Monash University scientists. These are fast-drying sprays and liquids including an underarm testosterone treatment for men.

The small company Mesoblast describes itself as a world leader in ”regenerative medicine” for treatments of rheumatoid arthritis. It is linking with global businesses to develop adult stem cell therapeutics for conditions including cardiovascular and central nervous system diseases.

Australia’s medical research and development is the subject of a review which is expected to urge fundamental changes to ensure research is ”embedded” into the health and hospital system and to call for more funding to match the soaring research effort overseas.

The federal government has commissioned Simon McKeon, the chairman of the CSIRO, to report later this year on findings of a wide-ranging inquiry into the strategic direction of medical research.

A recent review in NSW by Peter Wills has prompted a state overhaul to foster stronger ”translation” of research, aimed at speeding the transfer of proven results from the laboratory to the patient care.

The Federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, who ensured her portfolio included medical research when she took on the job, says she cannot get over the breadth and quality of research work she sees.

Plibersek is not signalling her likely response, but the funding of medical research, now running at $800 million a year, is the subject of intense debate.

The National Health and Medical Research Council funds a mind-numbing range of areas. The McKeon review is finding sharp criticism of the way funding gets shared around at present; that regulatory hoops keep scientists from their laboratories for weeks at a time meeting bureaucratic requirements; and that too little money is spared to finance promising discoveries in the crucial time between invention and commercial development.

In talks to other scientists, McKeon is said to have pressed for greater ”embedding” of medical research in everyday healthcare.

The retiring chief executive of CSL, Brian McNamee, says Australia needs ”to keep nurturing our world-class research base, but we should think about how we can better help institutes take their ideas from the lab through to initial human trials”.

Strong research results, he says, can attract investment from industry ”for the most expensive and risky phases of development”.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/in-rude-health-and-with-a-sharp-eye-to-the-future-20120914-25xef.html#ixzz26hlTfzew

by David Burkus

Still from Basil Twist’s “The Rite of Spring.”
 
Have you ever debuted an exciting new idea to the world only to receive a lukewarm or even highly critical response? Well, get used to it. Mounting evidence shows that we all possess an inherent bias against creativity. The good news is there’s something we can do about it.On May 29, 1913 in Paris, Igor Stravinsky debuted perhaps his greatest work, The Rite of Spring ballet. Up until that point, most ballets were graceful and elegant, full of traditional music. Rite was different. Stravinsky had written intentionally inharmonic notes and arranged around pagan themes.

Within minutes of the show’s start, the audience began to boo the performers. Supporters rallied against the discontented audience members, and the show quickly degenerated into an all-out riot. Before the first intermission arrived, police had to intervene to calm the raging crowd. During the second half of the performance, riots broke out again. Surprised by the reaction, Stravinsky fled the theater before the show even ended.

Of course, history would vindicate Stravinsky. The Rite of Spring is now regarded as a milestone in the history of ballet and musical composition. Yet, even this legendary idea was initially rejected, which likely came as quite a shock to Stravinsky after he spent years crafting and refining the piece.

Similar rejections can leave us wondering what we did wrong or why others just couldn’t appreciate our creative idea. Fortunately, recent research in human psychology is finally shedding some light on how our brains accept (or reject) new ideas.

Creativity requires an element of novelty.

For a work to be truly creative, it has to depart from the status quo at some point. That departure makes many people uncomfortable. Despite our oft-stated desire for more creativity, we also hold a stronger desire for certainty and structure. When that certainty is challenged, a bias against creativity develops.

This bias was first discovered in two studies by researchers from Cornell, Penn and the University of North Carolina. The research team, led by Penn’s Jennifer Mueller, studied our perceptions about creative ideas when faced with uncertainty. In the first study, the team divided participants into two groups and created a small level of uncertainty in one group, telling them they would be eligible for additional payment based on a random lottery.

For a work to be truly creative, it has to depart from the status quo at some point. That departure makes many people uncomfortable.
The participants were then given a series of tests. The first test presented pairs of words on a computer to the participants and asked them to select their preferred pairing. The pairings shown always came from two groups: creative versus practical (novel, original, functional, useful) or good versus bad (sunshine, peace, ugly, vomit). In each round, participants would chose their preference between pairs like “novel vomit” or “useful peace.” The test, known as an “Implicit Associations Test” uses the speed of participants’ reaction time to measure the strength of their mental associations.

The second test was more overt; it measured participants’ explicit perceptions of creativity by asking them to rate their attitudes toward creativity and practicality on a seven-point scale (from strongly negative to strongly positive). When the researchers calculated the results from both groups, they found that the baseline group (the one given no chance at extra compensation) held both implicit and explicit associations between creativity and practicality. The uncertainty group, however, was different. This group held an explicitly positive association between the two, but implicitly their minds separated creative from practical. In other words, they had an implicit bias against creativity relative to usefulness.

Novelty provokes uncertainty.

If this bias is present in most people during periods of uncertainty, then it could well explain why society has a history of rejecting its greatest innovations. To test this thesis, the research team returned to the lab and this time studied a new group of participants’ ability to judge a creative product idea. The participants were again divided into two groups – this time into groups with a high tolerance or a low tolerance for uncertainty.

The high tolerance group was primed by being asked to write an essay supporting the idea that multiple solutions existed for every problem. The low tolerance group was primed by writing an essay arguing the opposite. Both groups were given the same implicit and explicit associations tests and then asked to rate a creative idea for a new product, a running shoe that automatically adjusted its fabric thickness to cool the foot in hot conditions. As anticipated by the first study, the low uncertainty tolerance group showed the same implicit bias against creativity and was more likely to rate the running shoe idea poorly.

Mueller’s results have powerful implications as we think about how to “sell” our own ideas. We now know that regardless of how open-minded people are, or claim to be, they experience a subtle bias against creative ideas when faced with uncertain situations. This isn’t merely a preference for the familiar or a desire to maintain the status quo. Most of us sincerely claim that we want the positive changes creativity provides. What the bias affects is our ability to recognize the creative ideas that we claim we desire. Thus, when you’re pitching your creative idea, it may not be the idea itself that is being rejected. The more likely culprit could be the uncertainty your audience is feeling, which in turn is overriding their ability to recognize the idea as truly novel and useful.

Regardless of how open-minded people are, they experience a subtle bias against creative ideas when faced with uncertain situations.
If the implicit bias against creativity is triggered by uncertainty, then crafting your pitch to maximize certainty should improve the odds of the idea being accepted. You can do this in a variety of ways. Reaffirming what the client or your manager knows is true about their project should prime them to be more accepting of novel ideas. Connecting the idea to more familiar ideas, such as previous successful projects or similar works, will also increase the odds that your idea will be seen as practical and desirable. Lastly, try leading clients toward your idea with a series of statements they agree with and then pitching your idea as if it’s theirs. Thus, counteracting the bias against creativity with an even more powerful bias – the bias for our own ideas!

Have Your Ideas Been Rejected?

Have you had great ideas shot down?

Do you think that minimizing uncertainty could help your idea succeed next time?


David Burkus is a professor of management at Oral Roberts University and editor of LDRLB, an online resource that offers insights from research on leadership, innovation, and strategy.

 

 

by Frank Partnoy | 8:00 AM July 13, 2012

Speed is killing our decisions. The crush of technology forces us to snap react. We blink, when we should think. E-mail, social media, and 24-hour news are relentless. Our time cycle gets faster every day.

Yet as our decision-making accelerates, long-term strategy becomes even more crucial. Those of us who find time to step back and think about the big picture, even for a few minutes, have a major advantage. If every one else moves too quickly, we can win by going slow.

No one understood the challenge of time-pressured decision-making better than military strategist John Boyd, arguably the greatest fighter pilot in American history. Boyd developed a decision-making framework that our best leaders use today, in military and in business. It is known by the acronym OODA, for observe, orient, decide, and act.

As a pilot, Boyd advocated lightweight, maneuverable aircraft. He helped design the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which could be used like a switchblade in a knife fight. A pilot could pump the control stick back and forth, force the adversary to overshoot, and then flick through buttonhook turns to gain a tactical advantage. Boyd could outmaneuver his opponent — not by acting first, but by waiting for his opponent to act first.

Boyd saw these pilot tactics as a metaphor for longer-term strategy. What matters in battle, he said, is not merely speed. He developed a time-based theory of conflict, derived from Sun Tzu, in which the crucial insights for a fighter come in four stages. First, observe the rapidly changing environment; second, orient yourself based on these observations, process the disorder, and understand when and how your opponent might become confused; third, decide what to do; and finally, act at just the right moment, when your opponent is most vulnerable. Boyd spoke of operating “inside” your adversary’s time cycle: once your opponent moves, gauge his degree of overreaction or underreaction and swoop in accordingly.

The ultimate goal of OODA is to act fast, but not necessarily first. This applies to lots of things beside armed conflict. In general, we make better decisions when we minimize the time it takes to decide and act — so that we can spend more time observing and orienting.

Consider professional athletes. Because a pro baseball or tennis player has only half a second to hit the ball, it might seem like the key to success would be going faster. But high-speed studies show that professionals are better than the rest of us because they start their swings later. They wait a few extra milliseconds, so they can take in more information about the speed and trajectory of the ball, then orient themselves in order to make an ideal swing.

The same applies in business. The faster we can execute a decision, the more time we free up to understand the task, gather information, and analyze the issues. If we require too much time to decide or act, we are forced to finish observing and orienting earlier. And if we act too quickly, we might respond to a problem that changes or even goes away before the deadline. The four-step OODA framework works for decisions of all types, small and large:

1. Observe

The first step of any good decision is to take in information. What are opponents doing? How are they superior or weaker? Are there relative drawbacks to your product or service?

This first step is the easiest one to ignore under time pressure. But it is the anchor to good decision-making. Great leaders assess how the winds are changing before they set sail.

So the first step is simple: what do you see?

2. Orient

Once you have gathered the relevant information, the next step is to process it and position yourself for a decision. Orientation means becoming aware of the implications of what you are seeing. How important are particular strengths and weaknesses? Where is the open water?

The second step also gets lost when time is tight. Yet without a proper orientation, a business will head off in the wrong direction.

3. Decide

Finally, once a manager has gathered information and understands the key questions (who, what, when, and where), it is time to make a choice. Notice that this step is distinct from action. It is purely mental, the moment before implementation.

For the third step, it is important to make a confident, firm move. This decision is not the first — nor will it be the last. There will be time to adjust later. Remember, the enemy is watching.

4. Act

Finally, every businessperson understands the importance of execution. Once a decision has been made, it should be implemented in the most efficient, straightforward manner. Don’t look back.

The fourth step is not the final one. Once it is complete, go back to step one: observe. Don’t second-guess. Instead, assess. How quickly do you need to change your product cycle? Are your customers changing? What information do you need? Ask these questions, and then look. As a pilot, Boyd would constantly adjust his speed and tactics, cycling through the “OODA Loop” to refine his plans, confuse his opponent, and maintain superiority.

Boyd, like the most successful business decision makers, outgunned his competition because he was so good at managing delay. He got fast in order to go slow. He used time, instead of letting time use him.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/act_fast_not_first.html?awid=7356171335762137239-3271

Creativity – How to foster not hinder.

via Creativity – How to foster not hinder.

And they might also leave because they are frustrated and bored; they may see clever ideas killed off by local management and internal complacency and a focus that rewards organisational rather than market approval. _______________________________________________________
Asher Moses

May 18, 2012

“WE’VE created crack for women,” says 20-year-old entrepreneur Nikki Durkin of her online fashion startup 99dresses. The trouble is, Australian financiers don’t want to get the habit.

Ms Durkin’s aim is clear: “I want to build a billion-dollar company.” But she says Australia won’t let her, so she’s joining thousands of other Australians pursuing their dreams in the US.

Over in Silicon Valley, failure is celebrated and seen as a chance to learn, but Ms Durkin, who grew up in Sydney, had the opposite experience in Australia when she had to shut down her site to tweak her idea.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Dressed for success ... Nikki Durkin's idea has been seized on by a US venture capital firm. Now she's about to move there.Dressed for success … Nikki Durkin’s idea has been seized on by a US venture capital firm. Now she’s about to move there. Photo: Hugh Hamilton

“In Australia failure’s seen as a bad thing . . . generally I think it’s a bit of tall poppy syndrome happening,” she says.

Ms Durkin has been an entrepreneur since she was 15, when she was pulling in $500 a week designing and selling t-shirts online. Now she’s developing 99dresses – an “infinite wardrobe” allowing people to trade clothes with each other.

Ms Durkin has just spent three months in Silicon Valley being mentored at the number one startup accelerator in the world, YCombinator. Out of about 60 entrants, she was a favourite among the venture capitalists. She’s about to close a round of funding and move to the US.

There are more than 65 technology startups in Silicon Valley that were created by Australians, and this number is growing rapidly. Many who feature in a major video series launching on smh.com.au on Monday are highly critical of both the government and the venture capital industry in Australia. They say Australia is asleep at the wheel and risks being left behind.

“They’re moving to the US, they’re getting a green card, and they’re not coming back,” says Matt Barrie, the Sydney-based CEO of global online outsourcing site Freelancer.com.

As Facebook prepares to go public tomorrow at a valuation of up to $US104 billion, the opposition communications spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, says figuring out why Australia earns so little of its GDP from its own ideas is “the issue that keeps me up most at night”.

“It keeps me up at night because I think we should do better. It keeps me up at night because I don’t have any straightforward answers to it,” he says.

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, refused a request for an interview and did not respond to questions.

“They’re just not listening to us, we’re all just jumping ship and going overseas and putting offices there as opposed to trying to work within our own country,” says Eddie Machalaani, 33, who with Mitch Harper, 29, created e-commerce platform BigCommerce.

Australia ignores its innovators at its peril. “Mitch and Eddie might be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and that’s something that the country can really celebrate,” says Larry Bohn, the US venture capitalist who invested $15 million in BigCommerce.

According to the Aussie expat network Advance, about 15,000 Australians work in the San Francisco Bay Area alone – a large portion working for tech companies.

Mr Barrie has been an external lecturer at the University of Sydney for 10 years. “Pretty much all of the top guys from every year of my class . . . are actually in Silicon Valley right now doing companies.”

Only $120 million – out of $1.8 trillion funds under management in Australia – was invested by Australian venture capital firms last year. US investors are picking up the slack.

“We’ve invested slightly over $100 million in Australia in three companies – Atlassian, Ozforex, 99Designs . . . and there is no upper limit,” says Richard Wong, a partner with the large US venture capital firm Accel Partners.

Adrian Turner, an Australian entrepreneur who has lived in the Valley for the past 12 years, says if Australia doesn’t invest in technology-based businesses in parallel to capitalising on the commodities boom, we’re “going to be left behind globally in a way that’s irreversible”.

“There’s a whole range of things that has to be done and part of them is incumbent on the private sector, part of it is incumbent on the government. Right now both parties are absolutely asleep at the wheel.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/brain-drain-why-young-entrepreneurs-leave-home-20120517-1ytoo.html#ixzz1vAlSH7lw

9:58 AM Friday May 4, 2012
by Philip Auerswald | Comments (14)

As the editor of the journal Innovations, I’m asked with some regularity, “So, what is innovation anyhow? How would you…”? (eyebrows usually furrow here) “… define it?” Since I don’t particularly enjoy debating definitions, I usually respond by saying: “That’s a difficult question. But one thing is for sure: If you’re not pissing someone off, it’s probably not innovation.”

I like this response because, if it doesn’t end the conversation, it usually shifts it from definitions to dynamics — which is what innovation is all about, after all. But I also like it because it captures one fundamental obstacle to innovation that all would-be disruptors must be prepared to face: the potentially hostile response of incumbents who don’t want to see their market advantages threatened.

There’s nothing new here. We all know that Joseph Schumpeter talked about creative destruction decades ago. And he was well aware of the likelihood of vigorous pushback from threatened incumbents:

To undertake such new things is difficult and constitutes a distinct economic function, first because they lie outside the routine tasks which everyone understands and, secondly, because the environment resists in many ways that will vary, according to social conditions, from simple refusal either to finance or buy a new thing, to physical attack on the man who tries to produce it.

Since you, the disruptive entrepreneur, can count on incumbent resistance (if not necessarily physical attack) down the road once you’re successful, the question is: What can you do early on to be prepared for the onslaught?

The famed “Attack of the Doughboy” offers one good answer.

It was 1987. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield had just successfully completed Vermont’s first in-state public stock offering for shares in their new company. Sales were taking off, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was competing head-to-head with the vaunted Häagen-Dazs. Then Häagen-Dazs was acquired by Pillsbury. One day, says Cohen, a Ben & Jerry’s distributor contacted the two young entrepreneurs:

We found a dark corner of some restaurant at Logan Airport, and the distributor informed us that the salespeople from Pillsbury threatened to stop selling Häagen-Dazs to him if he continued to sell Ben & Jerry’s. The distributor clearly liked us, but we were the newcomers, the upstarts, and the distributor made more money off Häagen-Dazs than anything else on his truck. He couldn’t afford to leave his customers without it, so he had no choice but to drop our product.

Ben & Jerry’s response was a definitive moment for the company. Pillsbury clearly was in violation of Federal Trade Commission regulations against the restraint of interstate commerce. But pursuing legal action would bankrupt their company even if they ultimately won.

So the partners turned to a more dependable source of enforcement: their customers.

They launched the “What’s the Doughboy Afraid of?” campaign, with their customers in the lead. “A lot of letters started pouring in to the chairman of the board of Pillsbury,” Cohen recalls, “and some major articles appeared. Finally the Doughboy got such a black eye that Pillsbury relented and allowed our distributor to continue to offer our ice cream.”

Richard Branson tells very similar stories about epic battles between Virgin Airways and British Airways (a win for Virgin) and between Virgin Cola and Coca-Cola (a loss for Virgin). Where he succeeded, it was because his customers were loyal to the point of being willing to advocate on Virgin’s behalf.

Here’s the point. The more disruptive your innovation, the more your success needs to look like the creation of a political movement.

If you’re really creating change, it is quite likely you will reach a point when you’ll ask your customers to do more to support your work than just buy your product. They will need to stand up for your business, your product, your very right to exist in the marketplace. You’re going to be asking for their time. Depending on where you’re working and what you’re selling, you may be asking for their courage. To make such requests, you’re going to need to have built a hell of a personal bond.

“Ethics aren’t just important in business,” Branson says. “They are the whole point of business.” This isn’t just happy talk from a guy who’s already made it. It’s sound advice on how to succeed as a business innovator in the 21st century.

For folks who are looking for operational principles, take these from Lisa Gansky’s fabulous book, The Mesh.

  • Say what you do— manage expectations and revisit them frequently.
  • Use trials.
  • Do what you say.
  • Perpetually delight customers.
  • Embrace social networks and go deep.
  • Value transparency but protect privacy.
  • Deal with negative publicity and feedback promptly and skillfully.
    The good news is that creating the sort of deep, trusted customer relationships that both Branson and Gansky are talking about is completely possible. The bad news is that it’s no longer optional.

We will always need entrepreneurs to champion the new and overcome the old. But the successes of those who try to do so only serve to renew and intensify the challenge for the generations that follow. So, for those innovators at work today, just remember — you can price your way into a war with a powerful incumbent, but you can’t price your way out of one. When the incumbent fights back, you’d better make sure that your customers have your back, not just your receipts.

The reason so many would-be entrepreneurs fails is because they get too hung up on their ideas.

You know that brilliant idea you have for a new website/smartphone app? The one you’re convinced is your ticket to professional and financial glory. The concept that’s so special, so profound, you’ve limited yourself to divulging it to only a tight-knit group of confidants–the secrecy being necessary to prevent muggles from defacing, defiling, or (even more improbably) stealing your earth-shattering brain nugget.

Sound like you, or someone you know? It has certainly described me at various points in my entrepreneurial development. But here’s an even bigger secret than the one you’re hoarding: big, powerful ideas are everywhere and the vast majority will go nowhere. So keeping your big idea in stealth mode will likely make no difference to your ultimate success.

Think back for a moment to the people you’ve known in your life who achieved great entrepreneurial success and ask yourself how they reached their professional zenith. Yes, some of you may be fortunate enough to know individuals whose conceptual prowess was their ticket to ride. But for most high-achievers, success comes in places that are decidedly more mundane–the doctor who built a thriving practice over time, for example.

So the logical question becomes, why is that? Why do so few of the people working on the ‘next big thing’ or at the very least ‘a big thing,’ ultimately fail to make waves? As it turns out, there is a distinguishing characteristic that unites the high achievers, but it’s far less conceptual than practical, namely, brilliance in execution. “Execution” is a broad term; and ultimately, crediting success on it is a bit like saying the key to good business is sell more than you spend: accurate, but not very helpful.

My point here is not to define ‘execution’, but rather to encourage you to redefine your definition of “business.” Instead of thinking of business as an abstract noun, try thinking of it as a verb. When we think of a noun, say “car,” we create meaning for that term by thinking of the qualities or attributes that we associate with it. There’s a make, a model, a color, a shape, a top speed, etc. Note that these are all fixed, or static, attributes. But when we think of a verb, like “driving,” our mental map focuses more on actions and procedures. There’s stepping on the gas pedal; steering the wheel; arriving from point A to B.  These are not fixed attributes, but rather dynamic processes that ultimately determine the speed and manner with which we will travel. So if we could only start thinking of business less like a noun and more like a verb, we’d place less emphasis on the static attributes, of which the concept is but one, and more emphasis on the dynamic processes which will be more closely correlated with overall achievement.

Sounds simple, right? And it is. It’s also liberating. Many people have had the experience of sharing a new idea only to be told “someone’s already done that.” Often, this type of moment is deflating, and can serve to dissuade an aspiring entrepreneur from taking the plunge. Don’t let that be you! After all, Pepsi existed long before Coke; Hipstamatic preceded Instagram; and who remembers a site called Friendster? In all these cases, entrepreneurs found ways to break through into the consumer mainstream despite the fact that their ‘idea’ had already been done. Fortunately, their particular mode of execution hadn’t. The lesson here is that no idea is good enough to secure the future of a business, and no idea (or at least very few) are bad enough to doom an enterprise to failure from the outset.

So go forth young (and old) entrepreneurs with your hustle; your drive; your faith, and your boring concepts. Should anyone ask you to share the idea you’re working on, tell them. Or, if you prefer, say that the big idea that’s keeping you up at night is to build a business that simply executes better than anyone else. Then watch that person sulk away in search of another big concept, while the deeper business wisdom just flies straight over their head. If only there was a product to help them understand when they were staring the truth right in the face. Which gives me an idea…

http://www.inc.com/ron-leshem/why-execution-not-ideas-will-bring-you-success.html?utm_source=inc5000&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=incid41647week17&nav=su