TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why does the diffusion of innovation take so long?

The diffusion of innovation can take up to 10 years. Why is industry so slow to catch up on new technology? Why is there such a gap between what science knows, and what business does? Why don't I see technology presented in TED Talks from before 2005 in the market today? Why is 10 year old research/knowledge/technology still "news" to people in the industry? How can we speed up the diffusion of innovation?

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 10 2011: Business (although they balance risk daily) are afraid to make unproven risks. Once another company proves money can be made using the new method or technology everyone jumps on.
    • thumb
      Jun 10 2011: Still, not using technology that has been researched for almost a decade is pretty slow, even for the risk adverse.
      • Jun 21 2011: Hi Martin,

        Well a simple answer would be because The politic and monetary systems we use are older than the discovery of the most advanced way of knowing reality wich is the scientific metod... So science and technology are subordinated by money, politics and dogmas. If we used science and technology to solve all the world problems and redesign everything we could have the most advanced technologies and solutions in our hands.

        Please watch this if you have time: http://vimeo.com/9986361
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2011: Martin, I live in the U.S and I can't agree more with Kuri. I will give you a quick example, the electric car came out decades ago in the U.S in California. But because it threaten the oil industries and many other establishments, the electric cars got retrieved and vanished for a while due to the huge sums of lobbying put in by the establishments ban the cars.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2011: I agree with Kuri as well - so it is about time that science reforms the banking and monetary system, creating a value system (material and non-material) that is open to change in general (not only innovation). Sometimes I have the feeling that the 20th and 21th century believe that they can stop in time; keep at the best off status - and apply innovation only to secure this best off status. Well - this is not going to work.

          If we favor innovation, we must be so fair to admit that innovation is an open-ended process - it can improve and it can deteriorate our lives. Of course he hope and believe in the good power of innovation; but reality has often proven this hope to be wrong. And that might be the simple reason why people are reluctant to trade the known (even if not best working) with the unknown (maybe better, maybe worse)...

          I recommend to understand such aniexties instead of bashing so-called ignorant people. I am sure everyonne even in TED has his personal limit to innovation risks....

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.