Blog
Anyone Can Innovate
I’ve been thinking about the list of greatest Canadian inventions that I discussed in a previous post. I said that CBC voters got it right when they granted top honours to insulin, the treatment for diabetes. I still believe insulin is the greatest invention overall, but another item on the list is my choice for most inspiring. I’m talking about the Robertson screw, invented in 1908 by Peter Robertson of Milton, Ontario. Why do I say that? Allow me to explain.
In order to be inspiring, an invention must influence, impel, or motivate. This is the yardstick by which I measure an invention’s inspirational quality. Inventions can be great for a whole host of other reasons: they might solve a persistent or particularly troublesome problem; they might be technically sophisticated; or they might improve the quality of life for a large number of people. However, if they don’t influence, impel, or motivate, they cannot be described as inspiring.
The Robertson screw motivates and inspires because it could have been invented by almost anyone. Coming up with the idea required no special training or education. It didn’t require the insight of a doctor, scientist, engineer, or other specialist. When they hear the story of the screw’s invention, ordinary people can easily visualize themselves as Peter Robertson. It’s precisely the type of invention that makes you say, “Why didn’t I think of that?”
The same cannot be said for inventions such as insulin, the telephone, light bulb and pacemaker. They had tremendous impact across the globe, but they all required specialized knowledge to conceive – the type of knowledge obtained after years of study, training and practice. It would be a stretch for the average person to visualize themselves as Frederick Banting or Alexander Graham Bell. Can you imagine someone saying, “Why didn’t I think of the pacemaker?” I can almost hear the response: “Perhaps because you’re neither a doctor nor an engineer and you don’t know the first thing about heart rhythms or electrical signals.”
For showing that anyone can innovate and that all it takes is a little ingenuity, the Robertson screw has got to be the most inspiring Canadian invention.
Apples and Oranges: Not so Different After All
I spent the evening at the office of a market research firm in uptown Toronto. I was there to observe and listen to a series of focus groups that had been convened to discuss personal finance. One of the groups was comprised of boys, ages 15-16, while another was made up of girls, ages 11-12. Apples and oranges, you say? Well, they certainly had their differences, but the two groups also had a lot in common. (If you think about it, so do apples and oranges, but that’s another discussion.) The groups expressed similar views on a wide range of financial issues. To my surprise, notable differences emerged only in the details. For example:
Appetite for learning. Both groups said they had been taught very little or nothing about personal finance, either at school or at home. However, both described money management as a critical life skill and expressed a clear desire to learn more about it.
Differences: The girls were motivated by curiosity and wanted to learn about money from their parents. The boys were motivated by a sense of responsibility and thought financial literacy should be taught as part of the high school curriculum.
Concern about education. Both groups identified post-secondary education as the primary reason for saving their money. They were aware that their parents had been saving and making investments for their education, but did not know any of the details.
Differences: The boys were especially concerned about this issue, since they will finish high school in just a couple of years. The girls were understandably less concerned, since post-secondary studies are a more distant proposition at their age.
Channel limitations. Both groups praised ATMs, and to a lesser extent, online banking, for facilitating financial transactions. However, face-to-face interactions at a branch produced their most memorable banking experiences. There simply was no substitute for the human touch.
Differences: The girls said they might visit a bank website with their parents to learn about managing money. They also thought a kid-friendly financial website would be worth visiting. The boys said they would visit a bank website for basic transactions only.
Preference for debit. Both groups associated credit with high interest rates and worried that it might lead to reckless spending. Debit was considered a more appropriate method of payment, since it limits spending to the funds that are actually held in an account.
Differences: Though they expressed a preference for debit over credit, few of the girls actually have or use their own debit card. Typically, their parents provide cash for small purchases. By comparison, the boys use debit cards frequently to obtain cash from ATMs.
Appreciation for rewards. Both groups suggested that rewards would be a good way to promote responsible financial behaviour. For example, kids could receive special gifts or obtain merchant discounts for reaching savings milestones.
Differences: The groups differed significantly when it came to preferred rewards. The boys favoured discounts on food and sneakers, while the girls preferred discounts on clothing and accessories.
What does this all mean for the future of financial services in Canada? Should financial institutions focus on similarities or differences when looking for opportunities to serve this client segment? The participants in these focus groups mirror the group we are asking about in the Next Great Innovator Challenge, so I would love to hear your thoughts.
Innovator Blog to Take Sabbatical
RBC launched the Innovator Blog last November with the intention of providing advice, guidance and inspiration to entrants in the RBC Next Great Innovator Challenge. Our goal was to help participating students maximize the impact of their final submissions.
When challenge entries are received in just over two weeks, this goal will be achieved. Having served its original purpose, there will be no immediate need for the blog to continue. As a result, regular updates to the Innovator Blog will cease after January 26, 2006.
The archive of previous posts will remain indefinitely, and we will continue to accept comments for archived entries. Although regular posts will cease, we will use the blog to announce challenge finalists at the end of February and to announce the final results at the end of March.
RBC is currently evaluating the feasibility of running the Next Great Innovator as an annual competition. In the event that the challenge returns, the Innovator Blog will likely resurface as a key communication vehicle.
A Little Canadian Inventiveness
While writing Top Financial Service Ideas of 2006, I took notice of the countries where ideas originated; five of the ideas were from the United States, two were from the United Kingdom, while Austria, Netherlands and Turkey accounted for one idea each. The distribution is fairly diverse, but I was a little disappointed not to see anything from Canada. I’m not suggesting that Canada lacks innovative potency – it would be ridiculous to do this on the basis of a simple editorial. Nevertheless, here I was highlighting innovations to a group of (mostly) Canadian students in a competition about the Canadian financial services landscape. It would have been nice to point to some Canadian examples.
This is precisely why a television program recently caught my attention. The Greatest Canadian Invention was a two-hour special that aired a couple of days ago on the venerable CBC. Hosted by science journalist Bob McDonald, the show was touted as a celebration of “the finest innovations and innovators our country has to offer.” Viewers from coast to coast to coast voted for their favourite Canadian inventions via the CBC website. None of the Top 50 inventions dealt with financial services, and we all know that innovation goes beyond invention, but take a look at the list anyway. I’m sure you’ll find it useful as a source of home-grown inspiration.
Top 10 Greatest Canadian Inventions
1. Insulin, Treatment for Diabetes [1921, Frederick Banting, Charles Best]
2. Telephone [1876, Alexander Graham Bell]
3. Light Bulb [1874, Henry Woodward, Matthew Evans]
4. Five Pin Bowling [1908, Thomas F. Ryan]
5. Wonderbra [1964, Louise Poirier]
6. Pacemaker [1950, John Hopps, Wilfred Bigelow, John Callaghan]
7. Robertson Screw [1908, Peter Robertson]
8. Zipper [1913, Gideon Sundback]
9. Electric Wheelchair [1952, George Klein]
10. Poutine [1957, Fernand Lachance]
As these and the remaining inventions illustrate, Canada is no slouch on the inventive front. Granted, some of the inventions listed are on the quirky side. I’ve gone bowling a few times, for instance, but have never been compelled to try the five-pin variety. The truth is I normally claim one of the ten-pin lanes before heading to the snack bar for a helping of poutine. ;-) On the other hand, some of the listed inventions are truly significant. Insulin, for example, provides a lifeline to people stricken by diabetes all over the world. Voters got it absolutely right when they granted it top honours.
Whether your taste tends toward the quirky or the serious, there’s comfort in knowing that Canada has a rich history of invention. We probably don’t celebrate often enough, so kudos to CBC for reminding us.
What do you think is the greatest Canadian invention?
How to Impress Judges in Round One
Happy New Year! With the holiday season now behind us, it’s time to buckle down and get serious about the competition. To impress the judges, your final submission must score well against the evaluation criteria listed in the Rules & Regulations. In this post, I offer advice on completing each of the sections in the final submission. Suggestions are based on my own interpretation of the evaluation criteria and on discussions with some of my fellow judges.
Don’t skimp on the executive summary. I cannot overemphasize the importance of the executive summary. Though it represents a small fraction of your submission in terms of length, the executive summary plays a pivotal role in capturing the interest and enthusiasm of the judges. It should read as a stand-alone section that summarizes the entire submission. If it does not communicate the essence of your proposal, then your summary has missed the mark.
Keep in mind that judges in the first round will be reviewing your submission alongside many others. The executive summary is to your submission what a cover letter is to a résumé. A cover letter tells an employer why you should be hired over countless other job applicants. It has to stand out in order for your résumé to receive detailed consideration. Similarly, the executive summary should tell judges why your idea merits careful contemplation.
Provide evidence when describing influential teen traits. In my view, the key to this section is evidence. If you make claims about today’s teens, you simply need to back them up. Without evidence, you are asking the judges to trust you blindly. On the other hand, if you provide supporting data, judges will understand your stance and your claims will be difficult to dispute. When you make predictions, base them on early indicators that suggest clear trends.
Explain the benefits of your proposed idea or innovation. This is the heart of the submission and the section that judges will weigh most heavily. Insight into today’s teens will not amount to much unless you are able to suggest a course of action. Present your idea clearly and explain why it’s a good one. Focus on the benefits to customers and the organization. As suggested in Final Submission Quicktip, make sure it connects logically with the previous section.
Anticipate potential concerns in your implementation plan. There are a million reasons not to innovate. Even great ideas get delayed or abandoned, often for fear of failure. It’s simply human nature to recognize potential pitfalls. Use this section to address possible resistance to your idea. Anticipate issues that skeptics might raise and provide answers. Show the judges that you recognize the associated challenges and that you have a plan to deal with them.
Don’t be shy when it comes to originality and creativity. Judges will be looking for originality and creativity at every turn. If your idea is truly innovative, don’t be afraid to toot your own horn. You are the sole advocates for your idea and your submission is the only vehicle you can use to influence the judges. Your final submission is not the place to be modest – save that for the awards ceremony when you humbly accept the winner’s prize. :-)
- Share:
- Follow:
About
The Innovator Blog is your inside source for advice and guidance on the RBC Next Great Innovator Challenge™.
Recent Posts
Movable Type 3.33
