Another interesting little conversation with @amcunningham on what I meant when I said technology has no inherent value. I hope this clarifies, at least a little. For this I give you a low-technology example to illustrate the four concepts.
Imagine I place a plank of wood on the table in front of you.
The plank of wood is an example of a technology which, as it stands currently, has no value. It has a cost associated with it as it was purchased, but it is inherently valueless in its raw form. The wood has several affordances. It can be burnt, whittled, used as a doorstop, painted, used to break a window etc. Several values exist, your personal values may prevent you from burning it and your social values may prevent you from using it to smash a window. Now imagine you were looking to source a birthday present for a niece or nephew. If you were to whittle a toy car and paint the wood that would maximise the utility of the plank of wood. You are satisfied by being able to utilise the wood and now it has value as a birthday present. You have turned something from being valueless to being valuable.
Do these terms map to your own worldviews and mental models?
Firstly, I’d like to thank @troublebrother, @Sue_Todd, @richardjkeys, @amcunningham (great link to the social construction of technology) already for their comments.
I started here:
“When will they realise the iPhone is a technology not an innovation.”
I’ll keep this short, but I’ve been wondering a lot lately whether it’s me going insane or is it everyone else. I hear the word innovation being attributed to all kinds of things, particularly in healthcare. But what do people actually mean when they say innovation? It seems like a lot of people attribute technology as the innovation. Technology can be innovative, but applying it inside an environment is another thing entirely. In this instance, when affecting process, technology has no inherent value, no matter how innovative it is, it is neither positive or negative. Though it is an enabler. To me, innovation is:
“The synergy of people, processes and enablers (technology) to stimulate positive change and advance thought.”
This innovation comes from the fusion of feasibility (technology), viability (business), desirability and usability (process and users) of a new product or service into an environment. Simply giving clinicians an iPhone is only part of the puzzle, you have to look at the other components too. If I gave them all a notepad and pen would that be an innovation? The pen and paper in this instance are the tools that are comparative to the iPhone. If I gave them a PC and a copy of Microsoft Office. Would that be an innovation?
It just annoys me when people say “oh, so the UK doesn’t use iPhones in hospitals?” and I’m like, OK, so why? What are you telling me? Have you explored any other options? Maybe your process could be improved with a low or no-tech solution? How are you measuring effectiveness? How are you managing change? Is this what the end-user wants? What process are you looking to influence and why?
Many “entrepreneurs” are frustrated at the NHS (and healthcare in general) because they are applying false definitions of innovation. They are trying to change things without looking at anything other than the technology. What are they trying to change? What are they hoping to achieve? Is it about quality, cost-effectiveness, profit? When will we learn? Will we ever learn? Maybe you should stop banging your heads against imaginary brick walls and start to think a little bit. Am I right? Or am I wildly off the mark?
