Шта све треба да знате о Штедљивим иновацијама

solar-bottle-light-bulb-Frugal innovation_1

Штедљиве иновације су постале јако популаран термин у експертским круговима који се баве иновацијама и сви су дали мање-више идентичну дефиницију (што се реално ретко дешава у пољу иновација).

 

Дефиниција: Штедљиве иновације илити “Обрнуте” и “Ограничене” иновације како их остали називају, су иновације дизајниране да буду јефтине, снажне и лаке за употребу. Такође, обухватају штедљиву употребу сирових материјала и мали утицај на животну средину.

Индијци су природни лидери у штедљивим иновацијама са својим ‘jugaad системом’ (jugaad – Уради најбоље што можеш са оним што имаш), огромном популацијом и страховитим разликама у социјалним и економским статусима свога народа. Они су господари у развоју и прављењу употребљивих решења из ограничених ресурса.

Кључни елементи Штедљивих иновација:

  1. Изместите и препустите све активности које нису везане за матични посао
  2. Употребите технологију на маштовити начин
  3. Употребите технике мас продукције у неочекиваним пољима

 

Штедљиве иновације немају само сврху редизајнирања производа, већ и редизајнирања целокупних процеса производње и бизнис модела. У ту сврху компаније морају доста да уложе, а да истовремено прихвате мале профитне маргине како би достигли адекватан обим продаје. Тако, штедљиве иновације можемо посматрати као нови приступ менаџменту.

Управо тај нови менаџмент модел избацује две предрасуде из колосека:

1.Да је муштерија цар.

2.Да економија обима може да произведе битно смањење јединичних трошкова.

Компаније крећу од потреба најсиромашнијих слојева становништва и редизајнирају не само производе, већ и целокупне производне процесе како би тим потребама изашле у сусрет. На тај начин на тржиште се укључују сви они који су погрешним дефиницијама добрих муштерија били тотално изузети из вида компанија. То значи смањење трошкова на минимум и елиминацију свих сувишних функционалности са производа и услуга, остављајући само најпотребније.

Познати ПРИМЕРИ:

Број штедљивих производа на тржишту убрзано расте.

>Tata Motors је произвео $2,200 вредан ауто, назван Nano.

Car Nano - Frugal innovation

>Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing, једна од најстаријих индијских група, је направила фрижидер од $70 који ради на батерије и навелико је познат под именом “Мали хладњак”

> First Energy, start-up, су измислили пећ која ради на дрва и која троши много мање енергије и производи много мање дима него обичне пећи.

> Anurag Gupta, предузетник комуникација, је свео филијалу банке на смарт телефон и преко скенера отиска прста омогућава приступ банкоматима у руралним областима.

>Aravind Eye Hospitals из Мадураи у Индији је снизио трошкове операције очију за 80% примењујучи принципе из McDonalds-а.

>Narayana Hrudayalaya из Бангалора је учинио операције на отвореном срцу толико приступачним и расположивим (1 десетина цене у Западним земљама) да пацијенти сада долазе из целога света у хордама. .

> Соларна Боца-Сијалица је одрживи научни пројекат са циљем да донесе ЕКО пријатељску светиљку свим сиромашним заједницама на Филипинима. Овај производ је дизајниран и развијен од стране студената Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

http://www.pinoybisnes.com/business-ideas/how-to-make-solar-bottle-light-bulb/

Шта се то заправо толико променило у свету да подари Штедљивим иновацијама такав импозантан старт на светској иновационој позорници?

Први од могућих разлога је дефинитивно свепристуно ширење индијског и кинеског гигантског тржишта са невероватно великом куповном моћи под дејством огромне популације и специфичне осетљивости према ценама производа и услуга.

Други разлог је културолошка немоћ Западних земаља да се адаптирају на промене у светском тржишту. Тешко је чак и замислити Немца, Американца или Британца како развијају и праве ултра јефтине производе са својом прескупом радном снагом. Ово је један од главних разлога зашто Западне земље морају да извозе велики део своје производње у друге земље како би ишле у корак са експанзијом азијског тржишта.

Та трка је унапред изгубљена.

И док “земље у развоју” расту у својој куповној моћи, западне земље глобализују своје операције како би задовољиле потражњу. У последњих 10 година GE’s зарада на тржиштима земаља у развоју је постигла раст од 16% годишње. IBM запошљава више људи у земљама у развоју него у САД-а. Осам од десет највећих светских инвеститора у R&D имају фабрике у Кини.

Трећи разлог је саздан у односу Жеље vs Потребе.

Трећи разлог је произашао из потребе становника Запада да троши новац на нешто што им у суштини није потребно. Бескрајна тежња за све више функционалности и опција постала је рак рана која је пројела дубоке џепове људи. Справице, како их називам, постале су статусни симбол, а не оруђа која завршавају посао. Произвођачи и њихови Маркетинг и Продајне армије су упале право у замку опипавајући пулс муштерија на погрешном месту, радије него да се фокусирају на њихове стварне потребе. То је главни разлог због којег Западне земље нису успеле да опслуже азијско тржиште свеукупно.

Уочена корисност се продаје. Муштерија жели тих 25 апликација које никада неће искористити зато што они желе да мисле да су особа којој оне требају”

На другој страни, индијски и кинески произвођачи су са лакоћом и ефикасношћу испунили настали јаз са једноставним ратним покличем : “Потпуно лишен луксузних функционалности, производ ради оно што треба да ради и то је то. Није леп, али ради.”

Повратак у будућност:

Тешко је предвидети како ће се земље мењати у свом богаћењу. Шта ће се десити када се масивна куповна моћ азијских гиганата почне окупљати око специфичних центара моћи и новонастајућих хорди мултимилионера?

Мислим да већ сада они постају више западњаци него и сам Запад. Тајкуни купују луксузну робу и производе од Западних земаља опет у сврху постизања одређеног општепризнатог статуса. Тако да је то змија која једе свој сопствени реп изнова и изнова.

Где су онда Штедљиве иновације у свем тим муњевитим променама?

Рекао бих баш у центру…као период транзиције тотално има смисла.

 

У Закључку:

Просто речено, прост дизајн и минимална инвестиција времена и ресурса имају исти потенцијал раста као било који увод новог производа.

 

Термин дана:

“Innovation blowback —када имате нешто из земље која нема ништа сем паметних људи.

Штедљиве иновације нису само за велике компаније. То је принцип дизајниран да помогне малим фирмама да остваре велики утицај у свету.”

Штедљиве иновације су транзициони период.

 

Питања:

1. Да ли су Штедљиве иновације транзициони период?

2. Да ли ће неартикулисане потребе Запада бити и њихов крај?

3. Да ли то отвара простор за ново тржиште?

 

Најава:

Зашто је Србија савршено тле за Штедљиве иновације?”

What Everybody Ought to Know About Frugal Innovation

nano_car_Frugal_innovation

Frugal innovation has already occupied attention of many innovation experts who gave it more or less identical definitions (which is frankly rarely encountered in innovation field).

The Definition: Frugal innovation or “reverse innovation”, “constraint-based” innovation as others call it is innovation designed to be inexpensive, robust and easy to use. It also means being sparse in the use of raw materials and their impact on the environment.

 

Indians are natural leaders in frugal innovations, with their ‘jugaad system’ (jugaad—meaning, do the best with what you got) , vast population and tremendous differences in social and economic status of its people. They are masters of developing make-shift but workable solutions from limited resources.

Key elements of Frugal innovation :

  1. Outsource all non-core activities
  2. Use technology in imaginative ways
  3. Apply mass production techniques in unexpected areas

 

Frugal innovation is not just about redesigning products; it involves rethinking entire production processes and business models. Companies have to drastically minify  their costs so they can reach more customers, and accept thin profit margins to gain volume. So the emerging world’s reverse innovation and frugal production are part of a new approach to management.

This new management model pushes two common thoughts beyond their prior limits:

1.The customer is king,

2.That economies of scale can produce essential reductions in unit costs.

 

Companies are starting with the necessities of some of the world’s poorest people and redesigning not just products but entire production processes to meet those needs. This can involve changing the definition of a customer to take in all sorts of people who were formerly expelled from the market economy. It means cutting costs to the bone and eliminating all but the most essential features of a product or service.

 

Known EXAMPLES:

The number of frugal products on the market is growing rapidly.

>Tata Motors has produced a $2,200 car, the Nano.

>Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing, one of India’s oldest industrial groups, has developed a $70 fridge that runs on batteries, known as “the little cool”.

> First Energy, a start-up, has invented a wood-burning stove that consumes less energy and produces less smoke than regular stoves.

> Anurag Gupta, a telecoms entrepreneur, has reduced a bank branch to a smart-phone and a fingerprint scanner that allow ATM machines to be taken to rural customers.

>Aravind Eye Hospitals from Madurai in India have reduced eye surgery costs by over 80% by applying standardization principles from McDonalds.

>Narayana Hrudayalaya from Bangalore have made open heart surgery so reliable & affordable (one tenth the cost in western countries!) that patients are flocking in from across the world.

> Solar Bottle Bulb is a sustainable lighting project which aims to bring the eco-friendly Solar Bottle Bulb to poor communities nationwide. This product was originally designed and developed by students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

So then, whats really changed to give Frugal innovations such exploding start?

First of the possible reasons is definitely ever expanding India and China gigantic markets with their massive purchasing power dealt through sheer numbers and specific sensitiveness when it comes to pricing of the products.

Second reason is culture inability of Western countries to adapt to changing markets. Its hard to even imagine that Germans, Americans and British would develop such low cost products with their expensive work force. This is one of main reasons why western countries have to outsource large part of their industry just to keep their competitiveness in line with Asia expansion.

It is a race already lost.

“As the developing world grows its purchasing power, western organisations are globalising operations in order to meet the demand. In the last 10 years GE’s revenue in developing markets experienced compound annual growth of sixteen percent. IBM employs more people in developing countries than it does in the US. Eight of the world’s ten biggest investors in R&D have plants in China.”

 

Third reason is Wants vs Needs.

Third reason was born from fundamental need of Western people to spend money on something they really don’t need. Never Ending pursuit of more functionalities, features and options became cancer wound that ate right through peoples pockets. Gadgets, as I call them, became status symbols, not really tools to finish the job. Manufacturers and their Marketing and Sales armies dug right into the trap by listening to peoples wants, rather than focus on their true needs. That’s why Western countries failed to provide for Asia market overall.

 

“Perceived benefit sells. Customers want those 25 apps that they’ll never use because they like to think they are the kind of person who will.”

On other hand, India and China manufacturers filled emerging gap with ease and efficiency with simple battle cry on their lips: “completely devoid of luxury features, product does what it is supposed to, and that’s it. It ain’t pretty, but it works.”

 

Back to the future:

it’s hard to predict exactly how countries change as they grow richer. What will happen when that massive purchasing power of Asia gigants starts to cluster around specific power centres and fast emerging millionaires?

I think they are already becoming more western then the West itself. Tycoons are buying luxury products from western companies, again to achieve certain status. So it’s a snake eating its own tail again and again.

Where is Frugal innovation then among this lightning changes? I would say right in the middle…as a transition period it makes sense.

In the Conclusion:

Simply put, simple design and a minimal investment of time and resources has the same growth ambition potential as any other new product introduction.

New term for today:

“Innovation blowback —where you have something coming out of a country that has nothing except clever people.”

Frugal isn’t just for large companies. It’s a design principle that can help small firms make a big impact in developing nations.

Frugal is transitional period.

 

Questions:

 

1. Is Frugal transitional?

2. Are Western nations doomed by its unarticulated wants?

3. Is this space for another emerging market?

 

Announcement:

“Scratch the surface, there may be a diamond underneath” – are there clear possibilities for Frugal innovation in Serbia?

Fandango – Bajofondo Tango Club

Few words about Innovation with Mr Bror Salmelin

Europe2020_IP

Bror Salmelin, Policy Advisor to the Director of the European Commission

Education:
Graduated from Helsinki University of Technology with majors in Control and Systems Engineering, Electronics and Measurement Technology,1978.

Work career:
Assistant at Helsinki University of Technology 1979-1984.
Worked at TEKES (a Finnish agency co-ordinating industrial RTD) 1984 with management positions e.g. in Manufacturing, Industrial Automation and Electronics. 1994 onwards the Deputy of the Information Technology Section.
Finnish representative at Information Technology Committee of the IST programme. One of creators of the global IMS (Intelligent Manufacturing Systems) initiative from 1990, and during the Feasibility Study phase chaired the EFTA delegation.
Technology Attaché/ Vice Consul for TEKES in Los Angeles 1997-1998 establishing research and business contacts in ICT.
Works in European Commission; since 1998 as Head of Unit in various units (Integration in Manufacturing, Electronic Commerce and New Working Environments). In this context developed concept of European Network of Living Labs, which is grown through EU presidencies to 150+ sites innovation network for ICT intense services.
Since 2007 Policy Advisor for the Director in ICT addressing Societal Challenges (2011 onwards adviser for the Directorate-General). Responsible for innovation and take-up, and real world settings fostering innovation, Living Labs. Runs a senior industrial group “Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group” with leading industries.
Member of New Club of Paris. Member of the Advisory Board for Innovation Value Institute, Ireland.
Expertise in intangible economy and value creation, related to policies like innovation policy, productivity and creativity.

Focused now on new service innovation.

 

 

1. Why is innovation so popular today?

BS: Innovation is a popular word, as countries and regions realize that they need to have a new approach to sustainable societal and economical growth. It is as word having inflation, as there is very little new taken on board from new innovation research, especially regarding knowledge intense sectors and knowledge society. We must see that innovation involves courage to take steps in new directions, and especially not now only to intensify the “old”.  Innovation is DOING things.

 

2. External or Internal innovation? What is your choice and why?

BS: Both. One does not exclude another. When seeing sources of innovation one can see that most of business ideas come from outside, or interactions with colleagues, clients etc. But we need to keep internally strong knowledge and cross-fertilization across areas to be able to identify and use the external. Internal knowledge and networking also is important to produce value for externals. It is to create a mutual win-win situation based on open collaborative approaches (crowds and co-creation).

 

3. What is more relevant by your opinion: Incremental or Breakthrough innovation for overall country and business growth?

BS: Incremental development is incremental, and as such necessary to improve things. But, at the end the real breakthroughs come with paradigm, behavioural changes. Hence it is important to create those kind of experimental environments to test new approaches, with controlled risk. New approaches might be technologies, behavioural models, societal behaviour and of course business models too. Experimentation in real world settings increase probability of success and increase scalability to different environments as well.

 

4. Name three things that makes innovation successful?

BS:

1.That it is an innovation, not invention only.

2.That innovation happens with cross-fertilisation across all actors, often in real world taking the societal and technical innovation together, to lead to service or business innovation

3.That in the process there is courage to do the unusual

 

5. Is Europe good ground for social innovation?

BS: Our main asset is highly skilled, multicultural and demanding population, strong societal values and also societal security. Based on this we need to develop such innovation processes fro co-creation of services for the citizens that this unique strength of Europe is an asset. This “most advanced users” is also true for business services. Hence, combining societal, business and economical aspects with technology innovation makes us competitive.

 

6. What are living labs? Why are they important?

BS: See www.openlivinglabs.eu and www.openinnovation-platform.eu. When the concept of Living Labs was developed in my unit together with the stakeholder roughly ten years ago, the critical issue was how to make Europe attractive for innovation, how to attract intellectual and financial capital for innovation in regions. This brought the key idea of co-creativity an PPPP (Public Private People Partnership) as leading principles. Living labs are now a network of European (and beyond) sites for doing innovation based on user-centricity, and out in the real world, having the users continuously participating in the process. This is very much also the fundament for our European view of open innovation. One could say Open Innovation 2.0. Living Labs as concept are important building blocks enabling the creation of real-world environments and open platforms for testing and developing innovative (service) ideas in scalable environments.

 

7. What is Creative commons? What tools are applied?

BS: Creative commons is one of the licensing formats enabling building and sharing open communities and services. Strong IPR is necessary to keep the platforms open, likewise strong common approach to architectures on functional level. Creative commons is one way of capitalising and developing the societal capital in open innovation ecosystems.

 

8. Digital agenda of Europe – can faster Internet, Cloud and Web 2.0  technology bring greater innovation results and growth?

BS: Per se these technologies are critical enablers for the true paradigm shift. Co-creativity and crowdsourcing require in practise high performing infrastructure. More important for open innovation however is to create proper open platforms for innovation, also taking legal (e.g. IPR, privacy, trust) issues on board, catalysing for sharing.

 

9. Why EU doesn’t  use Cloud services and build its own social innovation network?

BS: The EU strategy for cloud services is developing. Interoperability, data security, transferability, privacy issues are examples which need to be also adequately addressed, and it is affecting the whole cloud architecture and governance issues. We are using available social networking tools to gain experience, but also actively engage the stakeholders to our actions.

 

10. When do you think Innovation union will be reality?

BS: The Innovation Union is part of the EU 2020 programme. We will prototype the tools with e.g. Active and Healthy Ageing (AHA), followed by others. These are integrated actions delivering results on regional, national and EU level, combining short and longer term activities. The idea is really to increase the demand-side innovation dimension to the research and development policies and actions. Innovation Union is a reality when the actors get together, and learn to build on sharing and trust across the whole innovation process.

 

11.What do you predict will be future of innovation and what trends can we expect?

BS: User-centricity, co-creation and citizen involvement will be increasingly important. ICT enables new forms of collaboration of value communities, where the role of the public sector is really to ensure the mash-up of the different skills and drivers for innovation, in real world environments. On the other hand the role of the public sector is also to invest in the new seed of ideas, nurturing them to be harvested.

I wish I had a crystal ball..

 

Innovation Post

10 tips of how to deliver a great presentation

Innovation-Post2

Hello,I thank my dear wife Bojana on giving me the ultimate test before i went to the public with simple question:

“Hey dear Husband (this is my version),

What are you exactly doing? What is your job? You see, my friends, family and mother are asking me and i really don`t know what to tell them.”

I was overjoyed to finally explain myself…Which i did, but two hours later i found that she was completely lost to me. That was i valuable lesson, and very important to me. From that day i constantly worked on my presentation skills, never to see that look on someone`s face like that day.

So please read what i have to say about my experiences.

After some serious time of extensive education about Innovation and Innovation management i finally got the chance to put my developed knowledge to some good use beyond office walls (beside my wife).

I was involved in IT Open Days 2011 seminar in Belgrade as a presenter on the subject of :”Innovation management in Cloud Computing”.

At first i was thrilled that i finally got the opportunity to pass the word to my fellow people and young students from Computer faculty, who btw are brilliant, but then i was forced to focus on the message i was inclined to serve them.

Innovation is not topic overly popular in Serbia, and because of that people are vaguely familiar with the term and i was at the hotspot.

My choice was to perform this presentation with all the necessary informations related to the subject and utterly bore them to death, or to use some creativity and to make thing different and interesting.

Naturally, i picked creativity. 🙂

 

1. CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE – I sliced through conventional creation of PPT presentations and went for something little less known: http://prezi.com/ntby344eeigr/upravljanje-inovacijama-u-cloud-tehnologiji/

Note: this gave me focus where i wanted to and it was very easy to create and completely lovable by students.

2. RECOGNIZE THE AUDIENCE – I picked not to talk in academic sophisticated manner, but to tune my vocabulary to their own age.

Note: Simple memory from my school days told me that was the right way to go.

3. “BATTLE CRY” – I focused “Battle cry” of my presentation to innovation and possibilities of managing it, not to Cloud computing about which they were hearing all day.

Note: Innovation was the term that i had to put light on, Cloud was not. I have chosen that way after reading the Agenda of the seminar and realizing that there were 5 or so presentation dealing with Cloud computing.

4. EXAMPLES, PICTURES, VISUALIZATION – I choose interesting bulk of good recognized examples to which i hoped they can relate to and better understand the topic.

Note: It was complete success. Latin words, history, definitions…all was irrelevant, examples rolled.

5. HUMOR CONNECTION – I put humor to good use at the beginning of the presentation and personalized the subject from the start. That way they got to listening me really, and we connected.

Note: I leveraged my charisma and humor to engrave my words to their minds. Try it.

6. SPACE FOR QUESTIONS – I gave those kids enough room to form up and to deliver questions, and those questions are best feedback of what was wrong and what was good about your presentation.

Note: Those questions are guiding points for your next presentation. Ultimate feedback.

Innovation-post

7. DANGERS? – I gave them advices. I hate giving advices, but these were precise and natural. I told them where are the dangers and what to nurture in themselves in order to succeed.

Note: The battle cry of the seminar was “Unlock your potential”. I tied idea management and creativity to this battle cry and gave it another, deeper meaning.

8. FEEL THE BIT, CONTROL IT – Keep eye contact with your audience, don`t make gestures, “aa`s” and stutter, keep your mind and body in balance. Talk with your body, but only in context of the words flow and message you are delivering. If it is too heavy and unnatural…go to number 9.

9. STAY HUMAN – You are not a machine, and they know it, so stop trying to be one. They can sense your unease, this can ruin all. You can leverage some power from uncertainty if you joke on it and make it genuinely sympathetic.

Note: I WAS nervous at the start…As soon as i uttered the first words and they were fuzzy, i got really afraid that this will be a disastrous presentation. But then, i took pause…gathered myself, and as soon as i got them laughing i relaxed completely.

10. MESSAGE IS THE POINT – Remember that you are here to deliver THE message. You are indeed selling yourself alongside the story that will be remembered only if you hit the spot with overall performance. Keep it simple, interesting, and funny. Tell the story.

Note: Don`t focus just on the message, focus on the people who are listening. Be a great story teller.

I hope this helped a bit.

Cheers.

Innovation Post

 

Where to look for breakthrough potential?

bittersweet

You want a breakthrough idea?

Don`t know where to look?

Well, hello Seeker! Your search may as well be over.

Based on somewhat controversial psychology theories of personality traits of first, middle and last born children i`ll make crucial connection between overall creativity and thinking outside the box to birth order and its effect on our careers.

Basically the birth order theory explains how our personality traits and lives are affected by simple order of birth. Whether you`re the oldest, youngest, huddled in the middle or only child – your family placement can somewhat determine your character, professional achievements and personal relationships.

Some scientists even go so far and say that even our lifelong thinking patterns are affected.

I could write down about 10 pages with all circumstances and environmental influences that determine whether this birth order impact will be in greater or lesser form, i could write down all researches done in last 100 years of Freud and Dr. Alfred Adler and their opposite fellow scientists utterly boring you to death, but ill just take a shortcut and say that it all comes down to these overall, general characteristics:

FIRSTBORN CHILDREN:

Personality:

Firstborns tend to be more conscientious. They are more ambitious than their younger siblings and often possess higher IQ. They are assertive, dominant and disciplined. They’re determined to succeed yet fearful of losing position and rank. They are defensive about errors and mistakes. They tend to be high achievers, reliable, well organized, critical, serious, scholarly, self- assured, good leadership abilities, eager to please and nurturing.

Research facts:

Typically, first born choose careers that involve precision so they are perfectionists by nature. The firstborn is often regarded as the success story in the family and they are extremely gifted to succeed in fields of : science, medicine, or law. Many first born choose careers in leadership. For example, over 50% of all U.S. presidents were first born. They are better educated, because if parents can afford to send one child to school, it’s more likely to be the first born. In history they dominated every field of knowledge because of scarce resources for education of all siblings, but in recent time that huge investment difference between older and younger children is drastically lessened.

Creativity:

Vast majority of Nobel prize winners are firstborns, so they dominated all fields of human development. That was also a result of scarce resources deployed in families only to firstborns, so they were better educated and favored. There are exceptions offcourse, Isaac Newton, Steven Spielberg, Che Guevara are perfect examples.

All firstborns are closely related to incremental improvements and are developing their ideas inside the boundaries of social paradigms. Rarely they thread beyond them. They are praetorian guard of status quo.

Famous eldest children include:

Oprah, Hilary and Bill Clinton, Winston Churchill, Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, all actors who played James Bond, Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Albert Einstein, Sally Ride, Bill Cosby, Steven Spielberg, Joan Collins, Mikhail Gorbachev, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini, Che Guevara, Carlos the Jackal, Isaac Newton.

MIDDLE CHILDREN:

Personality:

They are mysterious, peacekeeping, less decisive, diplomatic, with excellent people skills, easy going, flexible, competitive. Torn between parents affection and requirements and incapability to determine own aspirations they are more confused in early stage than any. Later on they tend to adopt firstborn frame of living, or complete opposite to firstborn in final identity build of.

Research facts:

They generally earn less per year than firstborns and youngest children (although you would not think this looking to famous middle child list) . With good negotiating and people skills they are brilliant in diplomacy and government bodies, nursing, law enforcement, all technology based fields. Sales and marketing, public relations and journalism are their fields of interest.

Creativity:

Middle children can be very creative, but overall, they too tend to stay in boundaries of social paradigms. In creativity they are following firstborns nature.

Famous middle children include:

Bill Gates, J.F.K., Madonna and Princess Diana, David Letterman, Richard Nixon, Bea Arthur, Glenn Close, Matt Dillon, Linda Evans, Jessica Lange, Cyndi Lauper, Tom Selleck, Mary Decker Slaney, George Burns and Bob Hope, George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, George Bush, Damon Hill, Cindy Crawford, Robert Graves, Tony Blair and Edward Elgar, Nikola Tesla.

LATERBORN CHILDREN

Personality:

If there is any birth placement that exists for breaking social rules and paradigms it is this one. The later born child always has someone ahead of them to compete against. Constant struggle to be in limelight, tendency to question authorities and status quo makes them biggest stirrers in life. They know no boundaries, they are adventurous, idealists, hard working, immature, secretive and sensitive. They are charming, with good sense of humor and great manipulation skill. They’ll be outrageous or funny as a power strategy in the family. In addition, laterborn`s are more extravert than firstborns in the specific sense of being fun-loving, excitement seeking, and sociable.

Research facts:

These children are more likely to be an artist, adventurer or entrepreneur– and more likely to participate in physically risky sports. Laterborn children are more likely to be comedians or satirists. Laterborns are successful in journalism, advertising, sales and the arts. Careers in sales, or invention corporations work well because of their ability to sell things, including themselves, work well alone, want to be the boss, and just do their own thing at their own pace. They are excellent in field of information technology.

Creativity:

They try to establish a place for themselves separate from their older siblings, and so tend to be more creative.

They generally seek to develop alternative and unoccupied aspirations within the family system, a process that seems to involve a predilection for experimentation and openness to experience.

They are more open especially in the questioning of family values or the authority of their elders. If breakthrough idea is vaguely defined as thinking out of the boundaries of social paradigms and norms, laterborns are masters of this ability.

Famous laterborn children include:

Nicholas Copernicus, Charles Darwin, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Jim Carrey, Billy Crystal, Steve Martin, Cameron Diaz and Rosie O’Donnell, Howard Stern, Jay Leno, Ralph Nadar, Bill Gates, and Danny DeVito , Eddie Murphy, Harriet Tubman, Gandi, Whoopi Goldberg, Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain, Ronald Reagan, Paul Newman, Mary Lou Retton, Yogi Bera, Ted Kennedy and Kevin Leman, Joan of Arc, Leon Trotsky, Charlie Chaplin, Bob Hope, George Michael and Sir Laurence Olivier, Jerry Springer

 

Only children:

Personality:

People without siblings fell somewhere between firstborns and laterborns on most personality measures, but they were no more open to experience than were firstborns.

Only children have similar characteristics to firstborns and are frequently burdened with high parental expectations.

They are also achievement-oriented, successful in school and have problems delegating work. Research shows they are more confident, articulate and imaginative than other children. They also hate criticism and tend to be perfectionists.

Onlies are generally super responsible, confident and get along great with adults. They often have the heightened sense of right and wrong. Only children seem to be very on top of things, articulate, and mature. Although they appear to have it all together and have many achievements, they regularly have a hard time enjoying their achievements. They are often labeled as spoiled, selfish, lazy and a bit conceited because the only child does not have to share with other siblings.

Research facts:

Despite the fact that only children are used to having things handed to them all their lives, they are among the top achievers in every area of profession.

Creativity:

Like laterborns, they are regularly spoiled, according to Adler, and have a hard time when they don’t get their own way. School can be a particularly difficult transition, as they’re used to being the center of the familial universe. But all that parental focus pays off. Only children are often mature for their age. They wow people with their vocabularies, and their comfort in adult circles. Plus, all that self-entertaining fosters creativity.

Famous only children include:

Rudy Guiliani, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Alan Greenspan, Tiger Woods, Maria Sharapova and Leonardo Da Vinci. Jack Welch, Charles Lindbergh, Ted Koppel, Brooke Shields, Nancy Reagan, Frank Sinatra, Danielle Steele and John Updike

 

History research:

 

In the history of science, birth order has often played a role during times of radical theory change. Nicholas Copernicus and Charles Darwin, René Descartes and Francis Bacon were all laterborns, and all pioneers in their fields. They challenged and tested scientific paradigms as well as religious dogma, and made breakthrough theories that changed science foundation. Often ridiculed and shunned, their mark was unquestioned. Even when firstborns have initiated major revolutions in science–such as those led by Isaac Newton, Antoine Lavoisier, and Albert Einstein–the earliest supporters of these revolutions have tended to be laterborns.

Nevertheless, firstborns and laterborns are each capable of creativity and innovation, but in different ways. In particular, firstborns tend to create within the system, whereas laterborns are more likely to create by questioning the status quo (breaking the rules).

Although, by looking just to famous birth order examples doubt comes naturally. Keep in mind that these magnificent representatives are overall rare and valuable humanity assets and therefore exceptions by default.

To Frank Sulloway, a science historian at MIT, it’s no coincidence that Darwin was the fifth of six kids in his family, or that Agassiz who opposed him was the firstborn in his. As Sulloway spent two decades gathering data on thousands of people involved in historic controversies from the Copernican revolution to the Protestant Reformation in his book titled “”Born to Rebel” he suggests that “the foremost engine of historical change” is not the church, state or economy but family structure.

Sulloway made a compelling case that firstborns, whatever their age, sex, class or nationality, specialize in defending the status quo while laterborns specialize in toppling it.

The lastborns in Sulloway’s survey were 18 times more likely to take up left-wing causes than to get involved in conservative ones, such as the temperance movement. To him, 80-year-old laterborns were still more receptive than 30-year-old firstborns.

Laterborns were five times more likely than firstborns were to support the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions–and nine times more likely to embrace phrenology. Not surprisingly, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were all laterborns, as were Leon Trotsky, Fidel Castro, Yasir Arafat and Ho Chi Minh. “

 

In conclussion,

Birth order can be perceived as determinant of the domain and style of creative eminence and innovation. From the creative perspective firstborns are most likely to gravitate to those areas of creativity that impose greater constraints on the creator, whereas laterborns are more prone to enter creative activities where the constraints are fewer and conformity to norms less expected. Within science as i mentioned, revolutionary scientists who overthrow traditional paradigms are more likely to be laterborns, whereas firstborns have a higher likehood of making contributions that fit within the received scientific paradigm or tradition. So by my opinion if you want incremental improvements and innovation you should seek firstborns, and if you want to generate ideas and products that are true market impact (breakthrough), you will have greater chance with a laterborn.

 

Innovation Post