Actual Innovation vs. Innovation-Speak (and making c.f. maintaining)

As an author who has published a book with innovation in its title, I think that 2020 book The Innovation Delusion by Lee Vinsel and Andrew L. Russell makes a strong case that there is little actual innovation, and a lot of innovation-speak.

In the Systems Changes Learning Circle, we can relate this to discussions that we’ve had about:

  • urgent vs. important

… since maintenance is important, but generally not urgent … until a system collapses.

A question worth asking a maker is if he/she is also a maintainer.

Read some digests from the book at

Pardon if I make typo~format errors; haven’t active posted in a while!. :-))))

So, I recently gave two ISSS presentations w/ discussions … one to the USA based SSIW Saturday group, and the other to the Aussie based ANZSys group. I discussed the severe challenge the General Systems analysts have in such a strict ‘traditional divisioned~silo’d academic environment’ confronted ever since the formal organization founding in 1956.

There is enough ‘conventional resistance’ to creative GenSys modeling from that source … that “innnovative” gensys analysis is daunting and discouraged. That is, … there is no “creative thinking” taught let alone encouraged in the areas of deep dissection and clinical analysis which true GenSys thinking requires.

The founders -intuited- the findable-ness of alternative relational associations in phenomena … but they never described their own paths and thought journeys … let alone illuminated discoveries … so they never adequately trained their students or followers … how the goal of a General Theory of Systems could be effectively strategized and approached.

No “clues” on how to scientifically or academically or ontologically or philosophically proceed, except for some visionary notions talked about and dreamily conjectured.

And I just realized something else that made the past 65+ years … worse!

I reviewed Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, and spotted that Kuhn -also- … never talked about -how- to “search for” those identified … “sufficient anomalies” … necessary to differentiate stale models from improved data, improved relational associations … and New Paradigms!

He sort of addressed the accumulation of random disparate testing results and dysjuncted information when experiencing scattered events and phenomena.

But what he -never- wrote about … was : how does an individual researcher and investigator begin to clinically re-analyze for accuracy and imagined ‘supposedly accurate’ information taught to students . .on the -presumption- that teachers only teach “accurate truths and realities”.

It’s all laid out on the presumption that math is infallible, that interpretations are accurate … that “There is nothing to see here, we gave you Truth. Now just accept it all and move along. Build on the percepts we gave you. Accept the equations and the interpretations … they are infallible.”

We DO NOT -teach- anyone to “self dissect” … to challenge presumptions or apriori’s … the “givens” of math and scientific inquiry.

Which …-may- turn out to have been correct. BUT which may harbor un-identified issues and problems and logic errors … OR logic expansions and improvements!

“Innovation” requires deeper effort and conceptualizing skills than we have trained anyone to explore, since 1956.

Such as … what I have been writing and talking about since 1996:. that Systemically … analyzed for the functional relational reality of it … that Leibniz~Newton “Calculus” … was actually and factually … the First “Information Theory”. It was -not- Claude Shannon’s/Weaver/Wiener 's modeling in the 1940’s!

Partitions going to the “infinitely small” … which will -always- be recognized by the infinitely finer (smaller distances between numbers) … values along a continuum numberline … is EXACTLY the ‘bit recognition’ property of every and all “signal recognition systems” or devices or entities.

THAT functional criterial property is the ESSENSE of an ‘information~data processing system’. Period.

Neither Leibniz nor Newton recognized that that is what they had also and most importantly done … devising the “partitioning relations” relative to the informational environment and ‘sensitivity~awareness’ phenomena … but -way- before Shannon… parsing data versus noise … built that secondary law of information systems … building on the original Inf Thry accomplished 400 years earlier.

So? How many "mathematicians? … how many “information theorists~analysts” -ever- sought to deep review the properties and relations of the Calculus that way? No one. Until me.

And How many of those folks ever thought to examine exponent zero as a “fully dimensional” domain which might be a different place that compacts and codes … and retains … Conserved Information … even when coded into a ‘singularity’ . .where nothing is ‘lost’ only transformed and the information likely is -retrievable-. [Because . .in perfect scientific extrapolation … THAT -is- the true inducted statement of existential reality (mapped in math concepts). Even a “singularity” can ‘contain’ all the data of an unpacked, symmetry broken (dimensionally expanded) Physical Universe.

Content is conserved, even if hyper coded.

Anyway … Systems Thinking dropped the ball for over half a century. It never taught its students or practitioners … to be the best of all possible honest deep critical analysts and assessors and modelers.

I will not read “Innovation delusion”. because I can guarantee it is built on Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems. And the conclusions are profound self-imprisoning errors in logic and factors evaluations.

Jamie Rose
Integrity Paradigm

Creative Commons Licence Contributions to the Open Learning Commons are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Please honor the spirit of collective open learning by citing the author(s) in the context of a dialogue and/or linking back to the original source.