BusinessWeek’s 50 Most Innovative Companies
Here’s a big table showing the whole ball of wax.
I guess I don’t understand their interpretation of ‘innovation.’ What they have here is a bunch of large, well-established market leaders. Looking through the list, I can’t really see companies with breakthrough products or services. The iPod wasn’t the first MP3 player, it was an improvement. Google has done some nice things like Google Earth but really they are just integrating commonly used apps into their core service offerings. Toyota is on there for their continuous improvement ethic - ‘doing better.’ Microsoft is the ultimate copier. Disney hasn’t had an original idea in years - Pixar does the heavy lifting for them. The Blackberry products integrate many existing functions into one device - phone, email, GPS, MP3, etc. And a big chunk of the list is retailers! I guess ‘innovation in customer service’ is import, too…
What I see here are a bunch of companies that innovate by improvement rather than breakthrough. Lots of copying and integrating. Those interviewed for the article value improvement over novelty - perhaps because it’s what their own companies are the best at doing. How a company like IDEO finishes so far down the list, who knows. No synthetic biology companies, either.
But the real head-scratcher for me is No. 7 - 3M. How can BusinessWeek name them the No. 7 most innovative company in the world, when they just got through telling us in another article that 3M can’t innovate effectively anymore.
And where are the companies producing the true breakthrough products? Where is Tesla Motors, who is first to market with a lithium battery powered all-electric exotic sports car? Not big enough or well-known enough to make the list, I guess. To me, if you’re going to do an article like this you need to balance out the list with an equal number of ‘rule-breakers.’ Seek out the companies that produce the bleeding-edge, distruptive products and services. Balance Efficiency and Improvement with Novelty and Breakthrough. You might have to dig a little deeper because these companies aren’t usually on anyone’s Top 100 list - they are the small wildcats who push boundaries.
ADDITIONAL: I just found a nice article on Wired that gives a different perspect on Apple’s ability to innovate. Money quote:
Apple is a pure design-driven company. By that I mean that they rarely produce an idea that is truly new, but when they launch a product or service, it tends to be so much better than existing products in the category that it comes off as legitimately innovative and create new markets.
Apple is a good example of the FCB Grid innovation techique. They’ll take a product like the PC and make it appeal more to the ‘feeling’ market through design.
Sphere: Related ContentWhy We Need Electric Cars, Part I
The most important part of the innovative process, arguably, is finding the right problem to solve. The competition between visions for our automotive future indicate that not everyone is trying to solve the same problem, and as a result we seem to be wasting a great deal of effort on low-quality solutions.
If we can all agree that the problem we are trying to solve is ‘How Do We Eliminate Our Dependence on Oil,’ or something similiar, it seems there are three distinct (and often non-complementary) problem restatements:
1. How might we move to a sustainable biofuel-based economy (develop new biofuels that allow us to keep our current internal combustion engine vehicles)?
2. How might we move to a sustainable electron-based economy (develop sustainable energy sources for power generation, and new batteries that allow practical transition from ICEs to full-electric vehicles)?
3. How might we move to a sustainable hydrogen-based economy (develop cost-effective ways to generate and transport hydrogen, and new cost effective hydrogen fuel cells to power our vehicles)?
Each has associated challenges and opportunities. But there are definitely discriminating factors that would, if we all got on the same sheet of music, allow us to prioritize scarce investment.
First off, let’s look at problem 3). The big advantage to hydrogen is that, if we can ever find a way to generate and use it cost effectively, it’s everywhere, it’s good for the environment, and it’s pretty efficient. But the negatives are pretty overwhelming, because right now, calling a spade a spade - hydrogen is a panacea. No path to the hydrogen economy exists that doesn’t include the phrase “…and then something magic happens.” Because right now the technology gaps are DECADES away from being filled. We’re talking order-of-magnitude drops in cost and increases in portability. Some day, hydrogen might be practical, but we can prepare for that by choosing another path today - more on that later.
The biofuel solution is getting a lot of press. Ethanol, biodiesel, and the like are favored by many for one overriding advantage - it allows us to keep our current ICE-based vehicle infrastructure intact. Detroit et al can build the same cars, and we can get our fuel from the same gas stations. But this solution leaves the baseline problem intact. We don’t have a problem because our cars use gasoline - we have a problem because ICEs ARE DAMNED INEFFICIENT. From the oil well to the wheels of your car, the total system efficiency is about 14%. If our ICEs were even 20 percent efficient, we’d use a third less gasoline that we do now. Plus, keeping the ICEs means we keep all the existing maintenance problems which result from a mechanical system with thousands of parts. This is why I regard biofuels as a short-term solution that tides us over to the best of the three - the electron economy.
Electricity is everywhere. It is more ubiquitous than gasoline - there might be a gas station every few miles on American main roads, but there’s an outlet every few FEET in every America neighborhood. We rely on it for everything BUT transportation. And the only reason we do that is because gasoline is energy dense, portable, and, even at today’s prices, cheap. In contrast, even the best batteries have been too expensive and take too long to charge to make electric cars a viable alternative for anything other than short, slow commutes in the city.
Taken on its own, gasoline coming out of the pump is cheaper, per unit energy, that electricity coming out the socket. But burned in an ICE, gasoline becomes more expensive by a factor of 3 or more. Electricity used in an electric car has a cost equivalent, as compared to gasoline, of about 80 cents per gallon.
Electricity is generated by a more diversified portfolio of energy sources - coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric and even small amounts of wind and solar. But because the plant-to-wheels efficiency of the electric car is in the neighborhood of 30-35% - inefficiencies are distributed fairly evenly across the process - it takes a lot less energy to make the electric car move than it takes for a gasoline equivalent.
At the same time, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic technologies are maturing and will result in an even further drop in non-renewable energy usage. These technologies have been around for a while but are just now becoming cost effective enough to be competitive. States offer incentives to businesses and homeowners for installing solar electricity. And there is a new technology on the horizon that might make us more of a CARBON-based economy.
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore Labs and elsewhere are developing a technology called direct carbon fuel cells. This type of fuel cell uses ash-free carbon from coal, coke, charcoal, or just about any other source of carbon you can think of and generates electricity directly, at a conversion efficiency up to a whopping EIGHTY PERCENT. This is a huge innovation, one that has the potential to change the way we generate and use electricity forever. This is another reason to support the electron economy - the woody biomass that would otherwise be used for cellulose ethanol could go to making charcoal for use in DCFCs. Between coal and biomass, we could provide all of our electrical needs domestically when DCFCs become practical. And the CO2 byproduct can be easily sequestered and used elsewhere.
To summarize: of the three paths, the electron economy has the most potential and the liabilities are the easiest to mitigate. Biofuels can serve as a bridging factor that help us achieve energy independence, but when DCFCs become practical the majority of biofuel feedstocks should be shifted to carbon production.
Part II will discuss improvements at the other end of the plant-to-wheels energy chain - innovations in battery technology.
Sphere: Related Content