| |
Creative
people: the people/place nexus
Discussion leader: Lillian Hoddeson
Lillian Hoddeson, University of Illinois, outlined
her work on a number of research organizations that
have produced significant inventions, including Bell
laboratories, Fermilab, and Energy Conversion Devices.
she noted several characteristics common to highly
creative places: a clear mission that is supported
by both leadership and researchers; minimal bureaucracy;
research freedom; interdisciplinary (and in some cases
cross-disciplinary) collaboration; adequate funding
and other resources supportive of invention; a favorable
balance between isolation from and interaction with
the outside; and good morale.
This list of elements raised an immediate question
for the group: are these points unique to invention,
or are they universal for creative teamwork more generally?
It did indeed appear that many types of creative places
share these traits. Whether places of invention exhibit
unique characteristics beyond the ones discussed here
could not be answered in the discussion, although
the group agreed that having a dramatic goal—winning
a war, landing a man on the moon, or defeating polio—enhances
the ability of a mission to drive inventive individuals
and organizations. Effective managers, who go beyond
leading with a soft touch to demonstrating a tolerance
for failure and “creative anarchy,” appear
to be essential to the inventive process. Often such
managers become partners with researchers and inventors
in successful places of invention.
Using the power of individual personalities to put
a human face on invention, even when those individuals
work within large organizations, is another feature
of many inventive places. The “lone inventor”
remains a cultural icon, thanks, in part, to the affirming
value of prizes and patents awarded to individuals
and the convenience this myth offers for helping the
external world understand what inventors do.
One of the more curious characteristics of places
of invention identified by the group, however, is
their temporary nature. Places that experience periods
of great inventiveness often later undergo creative
decline, sometimes followed by a period of inventive
rebirth. In general, the phases of inventiveness last
about 20 years. Some causes of this “half life
for creativity” were postulated. After roughly
two decades, bureaucracy and hierarchy tend to solidify,
which does not typically enhance inventiveness. Similarly,
the reputation of a successful place of invention
can come to overshadow the individuals who populate
it. In short, some of the very features that make
an organization successful at innovation can eventually
impede its continued success.
The participants also stated a goal for current
and future sites of invention. Recognizing the importance
of diversity and concern that the majority of actors
in the places of invention discussed were white males,
the group stressed the importance of working toward
enhancing diversity in spaces of invention. Various
incentives to recruiting and keeping women and minorities
in the invention workforce were discussed. One promising
trend for young people in start-up cultures is that
their tendency to hold a succession of jobs in a short
time period is no longer seen as a disadvantage. Rather
the implication is that the worker has seen failures
in other companies and can bring that knowledge to
bear in the current culture. ^^
Creative places: the
people/place nexus
Discussion leader: Fred H. Gage
Fred H. Gage, Salk Institute, described his research
into the plasticity of the brain and the fairly recent
discovery that certain locations in the brain continue
to grow functioning new cells throughout a person’s
life. The striking part of this is that the birth
and maturation of new cells into new neurons is regulated
by experience. Experiments with animals show that
enriched environments result in the production of
more cells and those cells divide more readily and
survive better when the animals experience complex
environments. Furthermore, there is a relationship
between learning and physical exercise in the creation
of new cells: exercise enhances the proliferation
of cells, while complex learning experiences aid the
cells’ survival.
These results indicate that the brain continuously
adapts to environments throughout a person’s
lifetime, raising the question for the group: can
architecture affect the structure of the brain? Since
experience can change the structure of our brains,
and architecture changes our experience, Gage offered
the provocative hypothesis that buildings can change
our brains by virtue of changes in spatial experience.
Though Gage and his colleagues are currently involved
in a study of workers in Washington, D.C., who are
moving their work spaces to new buildings, more research
is needed on the effect of architecture on the structure
of brain to show if any particular design is better
than another to enhance creativity.
However, Gage offered two examples of highly creative
spaces as case studies. The first was architect Frank
Gehry’s personal creative space—a spacious,
hangar-like building—which Gage described as
seemingly chaotic on the surface, with multiple projects
in various states of completion, but clearly productive
and creative. He then discussed the well-planned architecture
of his home institution, the Salk Institute. Originally
designed to include three towers, the plan was modified
before construction to two towers and a central courtyard
to facilitate communication and interaction among
the staff. Inside the buildings, concealed trusses
allowed unobstructed lab space, and, though the towers
are each six stories high, there are only three lab
floors. Between each of these floors is an interstitial
space containing all the water, electricity, ducting,
etc. Any of these utilities may be dropped from the
ceiling, permitting multiple configurations of the
space to match the work at hand. “So,”
Gage reported, “periodically, and more often
than you would think, we tear out whole sections of
the soft wall spaces and just redesign it.”
The common and essential characteristic of the two
spaces, Gehry’s studio and the Salk Institute,
was flexibility.
The group broadened the concept of flexible space
and postulated that having the freedom to actually
transform a space and make it one’s own might
be a key to opening the doors of one’s creativity,
doors that would remain closed if one were living
in someone else’s space. ^^
Creating places of
invention: regions and new spaces
Discussion leaders: Stuart W. Leslie and Robert
Kargon
Stuart W. Leslie and Robert Kargon, both of Johns
Hopkins University, compared and contrasted the role
of formal planning for inventive regions and institutions.
Leslie began with an overview of the literature on
invention, business, and regions. He explained that
for many years the predominant interpretation of the
intersection of business and innovation ignored geography
and instead concentrated on the firm, the entrepreneur,
or the industry. The leading proponent of this approach
was Alfred Chandler, whose ground-breaking studies
examined where research and development happened within
a corporation, but were not concerned with where the
corporation was based.1
This began to change with the work of Charles Sabel
and Michael Piore,2 who
looked at individual regions of flexible production
in several countries as an alternative to the methods
of multinational corporations, and AnnaLee Saxenian,3
who compared the relative success and failure of Silicon
Valley and Boston’s Route 128 corridor in terms
of the interaction of firms within a region.
Historically defined by maps and physical geography,
regions today could effectively be mapped according
to the flow of capital and skilled workers. Understanding
regions in this way helps to explain why some fail.
A successful region combines talented workers, venture
capital, and production. But regions may also fail
because of regulatory antitrust policies designed,
ironically, to protect competition. A third factor
identified in the failure of regions is the often-tried
exercise of replicating a successful model in an unsuitable
new location: To succeed, institutions need to grow
organically within their regional settings.
Successful regions, like successful research laboratories,
often have a strong, mentoring personality guiding
their development. Frederick Terman is widely seen
as having played this role for Silicon Valley. Similarly,
William Shockley receives credit for starting the
semiconductor industry in California. A charismatic
figure attracts talent and investors. Other models
of course exist; for example, the creation of government-mandated
economic regions in Germany offer a contrasting view.
The idea of lifespan applies to regions as well
as to research organizations, though the productive
period of regions is typically longer than the twenty-year
average ascribed to laboratories. Lowell, Massachusetts,
for example, remained at the forefront of the textile
industry for roughly a century. However, the cycle
is similar, and the group postulated that this may
be a natural component of capitalism. New firms with
new ideas are able to control those for a while, but
once competition sets in, resources are not as plentiful.
The places that survive the longest are the ones that
are responsive to changes in society and technology
as a whole and are therefore able to grow into new
entities, sometimes bearing only a slight resemblance
to their founding companies.
What kind of planning, then, would be most effective
in building regions and institutions in which creative
people may do what they want to do? There are a number
of elements to consider. Removing legal, organizational,
and financial barriers is essential. Tolerating controlled
chaos, minimizing bureaucracy, and keeping spaces
flexible are also important. One interesting idea
discussed was the effect of temporary structures on
creative work. Does planning for a near horizon, not
for the long term, result in a more creative space?
Does minimal planning actually deliver the desired
results?
Los Alamos and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Radiation Laboratory were examined as exemplars of
creative places that were meant to be temporary and
therefore not thoroughly planned. The atmosphere of
flexibility and impermanence that produced so much
creative work indicated to the group that designers
of places of invention might do well to begin the
planning process with a test phase to see what does
and does not work. Planning from the outset to build
a permanent place of invention may mean that the seeds
of its ultimate failure are present from the start.
^^
Creating places of
invention: adapting existing spaces
Discussion leader: Merton Flemings
Merton Flemings, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
shared his experiences over 60 years at one of the
foremost places of invention. MIT embodies many of
the characteristics already identified as essential
to creative places. It has a clearly stated and supported
mission, leadership “with a light touch,”
a strong commitment to interdisciplinary teaching
and research, academic independence within research
groups and among faculty, and tolerance for the sometimes
chaotic and organizationally “messy” conditions
that promote creativity.
MIT, however, adds other features to the mix. The
Institute’s culture is intense, diverse, self-sufficient,
a bit cocky in terms of expectations of success, and
dedicated to hands-on experiences. This culture is
nurtured in part by crowded work spaces and buildings
connected by the “infinite corridor,”
both of which promote interchange between and among
faculty and students and facilitate not only unexpected
but effective encounters. In addition, MIT’s
tenure process promotes technological creativity and
inventiveness through its emphasis on an individual’s
ability to affect his or her field, either through
publications that have influenced the work of others
or through products created, including inventions.
Flemings’s observations on life at MIT suggested
three factors that echo those identified earlier as
necessary for creating successful places of invention.
The first of these is, once again, flexibility and
its corollary, impermanence. Flemings commented that,
long after its expected lifespan was over, the buildings
that had housed the Radiation Laboratory were still
seen as desirable places to work. “Even later,”
he said, “when other buildings began to go up
around MIT, people still loved that lab. And not just
from memory, they loved to work in it! . . . If they
didn’t like a wall, they could knock it out!
It didn’t take much more than sticking their
foot through it.”
The interdisciplinary nature of MIT is indicative
of a change throughout the university system in the
United States. As institutions move away from an emphasis
on core disciplines with their own methods—mathematics,
history, physics, etc.—to embrace critical problems
that transcend and demand the cooperation of many,
“hybrid” disciplines (e.g., biochemistry)
as well as multidisciplinary practices (e.g.,
public health, material science) are born. This combining
of disciplines is also common in many successful places
of invention.
Finally, proximity, with its implied tension between
seclusion and inclusion, also factors in MIT’s
creative life. The idea of the “infinite corridor”
is not unique to MIT. The architecture of Bell Labs,
the RAND Corporation, and General Atomic, to name
only three, were all planned to maximize contact among
the buildings’ inhabitants. However, individuals
and their work styles differ and there is a strong
need to balance the desire for privacy with ease of
collaboration to the extent possible for the success
of the work. But what does proximity mean in the Internet
age? Is physical proximity still relevant and necessary,
especially as more research is carried out by virtual
teams working in disparate locations? The group did
not arrive at a conclusive answer to this question,
but pointed instead to companies that exist because
of and for the Internet, like Google, but still have
extensive physical campuses. Perhaps proximity is
becoming less about communication and more about the
inspiration that place provides. ^^ |
| |
Discussion
leaders: Peter Friess and Arthur Molella
Peter Friess, The Tech Museum of Innovation, and
Art Molella, Lemelson Center, led the final discussion.
Molella explained that the group would be asked to
brainstorm and comment on two separate but related
exhibit concepts. The first is “Places of Invention,”
scheduled to open in the Lemelson Gallery at the National
Museum of American History in 2011. The other exhibition,
“Spirit of Silicon Valley,” will be installed
at the Tech Museum.4
The target audience for “Places of Invention”
is families with children aged 6 to 12, with special
efforts made to bring in local families from the metropolitan
Washington, D.C., area. “Spirit of Silicon Valley”
is aimed at increasing tourist visitation to The Tech.
The goal of both exhibitions is to develop a model
for ways in which distant and organizationally separate
institutions may work collaboratively and effectively
on a major exhibition project.
Molella highlighted the objectives of the Smithsonian’s
exhibition:
- to explore the rich relationship among individuals,
communities, and environments that foster inventive
activity
- to investigate the role of invention in shaping
places and communities, including those that support
sustainable lifestyles and positive social outcomes
- to consider inventions within their social and
historical context
- to inspire people not only to learn about invention,
but to consider how their choices affect the larger
world and to see themselves as potential inventors
Some of the elements that will be used to meet these
objectives include:
- case studies of famous and also lesser-known
inventors of diverse backgrounds and experiences
who work in a variety of places across the United
States, e.g., large laboratories, small
businesses, homes, cities, rural areas, and communities
- multidisciplinary perspectives including engineering,
arts, science, and design
- documentation of the process of invention, particularly
the collaborative nature of the creative process
Friess then provided background on The Tech Museum
of Innovation, whose core mission is, “Inspire
the innovator in everyone.” He explained that
currently the museum has no collections and is in
the process of redoing all of its galleries, comprising
roughly 40,000 square feet. He has established a new
department to develop content for the outdated galleries,
with the overall goal to make the museum relevant
to Silicon Valley residents and tourists. Over the
next five years, the museum will develop exhibits
and experiment-centered presentations on Silicon Valley
and its industries. Currently, “Spirit of Silicon
Valley” is focused on three themes that relate
to places of invention in general and Silicon Valley
more specifically: the Valley itself, the people/teams
behind the inventions created there, and the inventions/products
themselves.
The discussion turned to suggestions from the group
on people, places, and techniques that might be included
in the exhibits.
- Feature a Shaker community as a case study in
innovation, design, and collective imagination in
the context of agriculture and manufacturing.
- Feature a historical community (e.g.,
the Anasazi) from the Southwest to illustrate farming
techniques and the notion of collective invention;
communal societies share characteristics with places
of invention.
- Include situations in people’s lives that
lead them to invent or solve a problem in some way
- Use “period rooms” to evoke a sense
of place. They are popular with museum visitors.
Perhaps GIS can be used to create a “period
room” of a region.
- Include an introductory film to define the exhibits’
objectives to visitors. Have fun with it; look at
“The Simpsons” episode about Edison
for ideas.
- Use “exploded objects” to discuss
regions and to show how many places had a hand in
producing the object. Include labor history, environmental
impact, defense components, negative consequences.
- Include user communities in the stories told.
- Pull visitors quickly from the familiar into
the unfamiliar areas in which place has shaped invention
and in which invention has shaped place; use objects,
photographs and graphic materials to do this.
- Keep the main focus on individuals; museum visitors
relate to stories of individuals
- Include something about the changing ethnic and
economic demography of Silicon Valley
- Tap into people’s personal interests in
hobbies and where they participate in those (e.g.,
garages, sewing rooms, small studios); personal
places of invention.
- Challenge and expand on the mythological stories
of the garage inventor, or the basement inventor.
The group also offered comments on the objectives
of the exhibits:
- Be clear that there is a difference between solving
a problem, and inventing something. An invention
is something new. Solving a problem, on the other
hand, is a means to completing a specific task.
- Be careful not to be too general when explaining
what invention is and who is an inventor; do not
let “invention” mean everything.
- Take people back to the historical point where
key inventions happened. Most people do not think
about the fact that everything in their lives was
invented.
Finally, the group provided some general advice:
- Do audience testing early on; find out if the
target audiences are as interested in the topic
as this group is.
- Do not avoid controversy, but put criticism in
the voice of the participants, not the curators;
incorporating first-person accounts is a useful
technique.
- Be sure to deal with failure.
- Prototype!
- Give the visitor some sense that there was an
early understanding in the Constitution that people
were going to be encouraged to be creative and to
patent inventions. ^^
Notes:
1
Chandler’s most influential book is The Visible
Hand : The Managerial Revolution in American Business
(Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1977).
2 Charles Sabel and Michael
Piore, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities
for Prosperity, (New York: Basic Books, 1984)
3 AnnaLee Saxenian, Regional
Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley
and Route 128 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1994)
4 Exhibition titles are
tentative. |
