Comments on: Success Comes From Execution, not Innovation

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:16:47 +0000

That’s a reasonable question. There are a lot of ways to make things better. Focus on quality, among other things. That’s a whole other study, and I’m sure there have been lots of books written about it.

-Max

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:15:43 +0000

Yeah, maybe. But the innovation could be a hundred years old. I just don’t have any concrete examples where innovation was *more* important than execution.

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:14:26 +0000

Thanks! Maybe I will–I’ve heard really good things about that movie.

-Max

By: Nishant Patel

Nishant Patel — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:38:44 +0000

Having something is not enough but how to express it to the world is more important.

By: Nikhil Patel & Riki Patel

Nikhil Patel & Riki Patel — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:37:23 +0000

I agree with you but tell me how will we increase the execution ?

By: Chirag Patel

Chirag Patel — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:35:43 +0000

I agree 99% with you that success can be achieved by execution and not by innovation. Because if you express anything differently in compare to other that attracts more and more, no matter if the idea is ancient, but i also think that innovation is also required for execution to get success. so execution and innovation are both equally required for success.

By: Divyesh Patel

Divyesh Patel — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:32:37 +0000

Having something is not enough but how to express to real world is very important. The idea is not that how good it is but how new it is, and it is taken to the real world. Try to built up your success based on innovation. Innovation is a part of our lifeline of any country.

By: Jinisha, Kajal and Rinkal

Jinisha, Kajal and Rinkal — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:29:20 +0000

We are all agree with you, Moreover I like the language you used in the blog. I want to suggest you to watch one Indian – Bollywood movie- ‘3 Idiots’, it is related to this topic.

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:58:05 +0000

Yeah, in art it’s very different than in programming or engineering. In art, it’s the creative person who I personally would like to think is important. Though, the people that we tend to worship as artists and musicians were also excellent executors–excellent with their tools, and frequently very good at selling themselves (particularly the modern musicians who we know about).

As far as the atom bomb goes, I think that’s a whole other thing, because nobody wants to take responsibility for having created it. But I think it’s pretty safe to say that at the very least all of Fermi, Einstein, and Oppenheimer are responsible for it.

-Max

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:54:06 +0000

Well, maybe sometimes people “invent” simply in the process of executing well. That’s been my experience–I know that sometimes in solving a problem I or others have “invented” something that we weren’t even aware we were “inventing”, and it was only years later when somebody gave it a name we went, “Oh yes, we knew that.”

-Max

By: Roshni

Roshni — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:24:58 +0000

Each thing have two sides like a coin, good and bad. I am also agree and disagree with you becasue our old poet (Indian) Surdas created very good poems but he was not able to present them one of his student to publish them. but the poems are famous as Surdas’s poetries not famous as his student’s publication but as his own. Another thing, is that Einstaien is not inventor of atom bomb, one of his collegeu was invented atom bomb, but today he is known as the inventor of atom bomb.

By: Sunny

Sunny — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:20:06 +0000

Max, i like that you have given ur views. I am agree we should always present ideas, plans, informations to others.

By: agrawal sumit

agrawal sumit — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:17:44 +0000

my personal idea is ,if we will innovant something then we can execute.

By: Darshan Dhola

Darshan Dhola — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:14:15 +0000

I am agree on your essay. some of views are complycated to understand.

By: Saurabh Barot

Saurabh Barot — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:11:45 +0000

Ya, I’m agree with your thaught. Its always important that one must “execute” his/her idea smartly to make others understood. But we should not forget about “The Inventors”, ’cause if they didn’t invent then how they or we can execute it.

By: VEnu

VEnu — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:17:35 +0000

innovation is importnant

By: Long’s Weblog » Blog Archive » It’s Not Innovation That Leads to Success, but Execution

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:50:53 +0000

[...] Via Code Simplicity [...]

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:58:00 +0000

Sure, if you include execution in it, then there’s no point in even discussing it. But I think people just get too focused on coming up with new methods, ideas, or products, and think that that alone is what’s going to make them successful, when it’s really just important that they execute well, no matter how new or old their idea is.

-Max

By: Kṟṡṋá

Kṟṡṋá — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:22:12 +0000

I think Innovation doesn’t necessarily mean “Inventing”.
All it means is change something established by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

So it does include “EXECUTION” and “CREATIVITY”

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:37:08 +0000

Well, Mr. Steve, I’m perfectly happy to have somebody have a different viewpoint than me. Thanks for sharing it!

-Max

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:02:20 +0000

Of course it is Max. Unless you come up with new algos, new methods or new ways to do stuff (invent it) you will never make it big (i am not even talking about google or apple), no matter how good your ‘executive’ skills are.

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:29:13 +0000

Hmm. So would you prefer to focus on innovation over execution? That is, do you think innovation is more important than execution?

-Max

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:19:23 +0000

Disagree. Eventually the talented executors ARE in fact innovators. Ford made lots of inventions, Google made millions of inventions, Apple made lots of innovations in UI. Elvis is a performer – that’s different, for him it’s all about performing other people stuff composed (invented!)

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:54:09 +0000

Hmm, did you read all the way through the article? I agree, innovation is great. It’s just not really what leads to success.

If you were acquired, that makes you far more successful than 99.9% of all startups, I think! I wonder if you even would have been acquired (or would have been able to develop a successful product) if you had been doing something radically new.

-Max

By: puzzle-out

puzzle-out — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:32:53 +0000

I think your post shows a worrying disregard for ambition in business.
I used to think exactly along these lines, and my last start-up was well executed, but completely uninnovative (just putting two ideas together – fair trade + ecommerce). We were acquired, but the amount would have been MUCH more had we taken the leap and tried to do something radically new.
There’s also a very strong link between quality of execution and innovation: the best hackers will want to do something completely new.
Plus if people stop trying to innovate, then executioners like Alexander Graham Bell will have no raw material to work with.

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:13:00 +0000

Hahahahahaha, oh, that is so true!

-Max

By: Greg M

Greg M — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:06:07 +0000

Great executors frequently get to rewrite history to make them look like they were the innovators anyway.

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:51:32 +0000

Mmm…you have to be massively innovative for it to be as valuable as a small amount of good execution.

Microsoft is consistently un-innovative and yet quite successful, and when they started to focus on innovation (Vista, Office 2007) over functional execution they had trouble.

-Max

By: Coenwulf

Coenwulf — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:45:04 +0000

I think of innovation and execution as orthogonal continua. Both can contribute to success. If you can execute notably better than the company next door you’ll likely customers on that basis. If you can execute reasonably well (but not as well as the company next door) but you have a more innovative offering you’ll be able to find customers who want that innovative approach. My suggestion for success would be find that minimum level of execution to make your product viable for customers (considering the playing-field of competition) and the minimum level of innovation to distinguish yourself from your competition. Then decide what to enhance for your path to success (execution, innovation, combination of both).

You seem to be referring to innovation as only the first innovative step toward something that is later thought of as a product. In reality innovation is always a series of small steps. Even the key step of invention is usually a small one built on a pile of earlier steps.

Ignoring either execution or innovation is a recipe for failure.

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:19:25 +0000

Yes! I totally know what you’re talking about, being a huge music junkie and a musician myself. I had lots of music examples that I thought of, I just didn’t want to litter the whole article with them.

-Max

By: Ant Bryan

Ant Bryan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:06:35 +0000

when talking about music, I call it “innovators” vs “perfecters”. only occasionally is someone both (at least in the music I listen to). I respect both, but most of the time I just want to listen to the best music (those that have executed it well)

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:49:29 +0000

Wow! I didn’t even know that story, thank you so much!

-Max

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:47:48 +0000

Thanks! Sure, there are some innovative aspects to a great execution, like Ford’s use of the assembly line. It was the word “innovation” that was really being over-used, though, so that’s the one I wanted to really hit there.

-Max

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:46:59 +0000

Hahaha, yeah, I agree.

I think the patent system might be good for some things, but it should probably have a shorter protection limit (like 5 years or less), and algorithms definitely shouldn’t be patentable (since they’re really an idea, not an implementation of an idea).

-Max

By: Max Kanat-Alexander

Max Kanat-Alexander — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:45:48 +0000

Well, except you can innovate and then execute poorly. I mean, you can prove that your idea “works” (that is, that it creates a functional system) with a poor execution, so I do think they’re still separate.

-Max

By: Burnout

Burnout — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:22:01 +0000

To further your point, Alexander Graham Bell was a great executor but he didn’t invent the telephone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews

By: Funtomas

Funtomas — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:39:53 +0000

Great departure from IP establishment, Max. However, I dare to suggest correction to your title: “Success Comes From Execution, not Invention” as innovation can be achieved perpetually through improving execution.
Great post anyway.

By: Taras

Taras — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:28:03 +0000

Excellent post. I 100% agree. Thanks for exposing this fallacy! Innovation has been abused into such a meaningless marketing term and is definitely overhyped. I agree that inventing something matters a lot less than being able to deliver it. Too bad that execution or delivery don’t sound as good.

Notice how focusing on delivery of a product, rather than invention – makes the patent system seem kind of silly

By: dria

dria — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:01:16 +0000

Personally I think “innovation” includes execution — an idea is just an idea until it’s executed upon and proven in the real world, at which point it becomes an innovation.