The research literature on innovations as they proliferate into a community is engaging. One central concept is the idea that innovations are risky for a world that may not be ready for it. Being first involves changing human attitudes and behaviors, structures, technologies, and the larger economies—for an innovation to actually “take.”

These entrepreneurial risks are important to take to move technologies forward to improve human lives. The challenge though is building to an environment that may not fully protect innovations. Environments that allow mass copying of people’s works would not inspire innovators to disseminate their works in that locale. Rather, they may sell their ideas to bidders in environments where ideas may be captured, protected, and turned into sellable products and services.

As a matter of fact, there’s plenty of from-life research that shows that first innovators are often not the ones to benefit most. Rather, the fast-followers who emulate the bleeding-edge ideas are the ones who are often identified as the ones on the cutting-edge and who benefit…

Fast Follower-ship

Compounding the challenges in a competitive marketplace are those who pay attention to others’ innovations. A good idea may catch on like a wildfire, and then everyone piles out, and then ideas either become institutionalized in practice, or they sort of come in as a fad…and disappear.

Or others innovate on the initial idea and take it to new and different “levels.” Sometimes, new and sparkly ideas are not developed sufficiently before they hit the public, and their redefinitions are carried on by others…in fresh ways.

Absolute Originality?

There is not true absolute originality. People’s ideas do seem to build on each other’s works. People are inspired by what is happening in the larger environment—in the same way that technological innovations draw from nature, or artists are inspired by the works of other artists. This brings up the idea of wondering what percentage of an innovation is fully original.

Once launched, innovations are very hard to retract, particularly in online connected spaces. What’s happening with open-source innovations and user-generated digital contents and the social spaces created for the dissemination of digital contents (imagery, information, and learning objects) is a mass proliferation of plenty of contents, of varying quality and usefulness.

There’s a lot of emulation, but the original builds and contributions seem to be happening more on the quiet.