Horse or cart?: Technology is actually in front

A fascinating new book, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, by the economist W. Brian Arthur, was just published that challenges much of the conventional wisdom that we hold about the relationship between science and technology.  Most notably, the notion that science is the horse to technology's cart; in other words, scientific advancement results in technological innovation.

Dr. Arthur turns this notion on its ear by arguing that, in fact, the evolution of science could not occur without relevant technological discoveries. Though science would still exist in some form with its foundation in human curiosity, exploration, and deduction, it would be primitive compared to where it is today were it not for the emergence of new technologies that enable breakthroughs that allow us to access information beyond our narrow sensory, cognitive, and physical capabilities. Think electron microscope, computer, hydrogen-fueled rocket, and particle accelerator. Inventions such these free our intellect and creativity from their all-too-human shackles by expanding the universe of what is possible. Because it's impossible to imagine the impossible, technology makes what was inconceivable and puts it within our sight and our grasp. Without the necessary technology, the questions that would advance science could not be pondered.

Dr. Arthur also posits that technological advances aren't revolutionary, but rather evolutionary, in which existing technologies are looked at in new ways and applied to as-yet-unthought-of uses. Think about Twitter. At first blush, it may look like a completely new step in communication technology. But, under greater scrutiny, and with 20/20 hindsight, it is actually a real-time recombination of SMS and Facebook. He suggests that all technological development can be traced retrospectively in the same way.

If you buy into the argument that technological innovation is simply a reformulation of recent technology, then the iconic image of the solitary inventor making a discovery from his or her own brilliance, creativity, and inspiration disconnected from existing knowledge is more myth than reality. Or perhaps it is simply a representation of innovation that is badly outdated. Certainly, history is rife with examples of isolated geniuses, whether Galileo, Da Vinci, Franklin, or Bell, who make what appear to be revolutionary jumps forward in technology. But perhaps times have changed. It may be that technology has progressed so far that huge flights of creative fancy by individuals, however brilliant, are no longer possible. Garage-based inventors, however romantic they may sound, may be a thing of the past.

Because technology has become so complex, solitary and isolated innovation may not be feasible any longer. Today's, and the future's, breakthroughs may demand collaborative teamwork for several reasons. New technology now emerges at the nexus of many fields of study. It's rare the individual who has the diverse intellectual and technical skill sets necessary to master a technological challenge alone. Also, in most cases, teams of thinkers can be more creative than one. In fact, the Internet has provided a fertile field in which literally thousands of designers and engineers, professional and amateur alike, can work together to create and innovate. Twitter's use of its users to drive innovation is a powerful example of this democratizing, "power to the people" change in how progress happens.

Dr. Arthur also believes that technological innovation starts with people who have an end goal in mind, for example, a problem to be solved or an idea about how technology can make us more productive.  From that destination, technologists examine what is currently available and look for new uses or modifications of the existing technology to achieve their identified end goal. Certainly, such a calculated approach to problem solving can be both efficient and effective.

At the same time, innovation doesn't always emerge from such a deliberate process. To the contrary, creativity is frequently a nonlinear experience that can't be readily mapped in its progression from problem to solution. More often than not, a new idea arises out of a spontaneous "aha" experience triggered by accident, or at least that's the way it appears. I get some of my best ideas when I'm not thinking about them at all, for example, when I'm running or about to fall asleep. Clearly, at some unconscious level, I'm wrestling with the problem, but, by not being tied to a particular line of thinking, my creative mind is free to roam in every corner of my brain for the best possible solution.

Creativity can also occur through serendipity. When you see or hear something that appears to be totally unrelated to the problem you're confronting, it triggers an awareness of a new pattern or way of looking at it. A technologist I know told me not long ago that a breakthrough in a new communications technology came to him while watching a wildlife documentary and seeing how a particular species of animal communicated. And a design-team leader with whom I worked described how watching children in his daughter's kindergarten class work together on a project inspired him to reconfigure his team to better address a confounding design problem with which they had been struggling.

I have several points I would like you to take away from this post. First, what is your ideal team for creativity and innovation: your design partner, a multidisciplinary team of experts, a "team" of thousand of amateur developers, or perhaps a "think tank" of millions of end users who make your technology their own and, in doing so, see its potential in personal, novel, and universally useful ways (think app stores)? The more you can actively create that technological "dream team," the better you can leverage its abilities to produce a new generation of technology.

Second, think of creativity as akin to sleep. You can't try to fall asleep. In fact, the harder you try, the less likely sleep will come. Instead, you must create a setting that encourages sleep, for example, taking a hot bath before bedtime or having a quiet and dark room. New ideas arise in a similar fashion. My challenge to you is to consider what that ideal setting is for you to be at your creative best. The more conducive the environment is to innovating, the more innovation will occur (during the dot-com boom, ping pong and Razor scooters seemed to be requisites for creativity!).

Finally, I want you to fully appreciate the essential role that you play in the advancement of scientific knowledge. As the horse that pulls the cart of science that Dr. Arthur suggests, this influence may begin in the specific technologies that you are developing, but then those innovations can lead to scientific advances that might not have been possible without that new technology. Even more intriguing is the "butterfly effect" on future scientific development that might never have been conceived without your technological contributions.