Innovation #3: Pit stops then and now

In innovation it's tempting to focus just on one factor. In education, the overwhelming focus tends to be that of technology. But technology is just one part of the story. Consider how pit stops have changed over the decades. This clip contrasts things well:

Clearly the technology is different (what is that first guy banging the tyres with?) But the real success here rests on so much more. A few observations:

• The main technology shift here is the use of pneumatic wrenches (and new ways of connecting the wheels).
• There are more people involved - and some with new roles.
• There is a clear objective, namely less processing time for the car.
• The process is much more efficient: from 57 seconds to about 1.3.

The video seems to emphasise the difference in time taken to change tyres. To be fair the second driver didn't get their windshield wiped. So, to focus on the tyres: there were 12 people involved in the 2013 example instead of the one in the earlier clip, and there were two additional people steadying the car while it was elevated. So, 13 additional people.

Why this innovation is successful is that not only does the technology change; the entire approach to the task changed to complement the innovation, toward a clear objective.

The objective is all important. How much does it cost to have 21 guys standing around waiting for their 1.3 second activity as opposed to five (with only four allowed to work on the car)? Clearly the objective of a rapid change justifies what must surely be a higher price. The objective is to change the tyres as rapidly as possible: a clear goal.

Change to process is likewise critical. Rather than just giving the one guy a pneumatic wrench, the entire process is re-engineered. It is here that the main improvement is found. The pneumatic wrench is clearly a significant step forward. But so is a team of three per tyre, their task practised to synergetic perfection.

The technology stands out as an obvious improvement over the cave man-style approach in the 1950s (though to this day my own approach to such tasks tends to be the same: "bang it with a hammer"). But it's the process re-engineering, and the fact that the objective of the change is so clear, that combine to make the full innovation.

So, for education?

Technology-based innovation = clear outcome x (technology to the power of improved process).

Place a zero at any part to the right of the equation and see what it results in!

Supplemental thought: It is important that innovation is seen as the result of multiple contributors. Education innovation is in danger of reductionist ("technology is what we need for innovation to take place") and dogmatic ("if it doesn't leverage technology it's not innovative" - or, worse, "if it is technological it is innovative") thinking. Educational innovation may well involve technology; it is more likely to require a change in processes in response to clear objectives. It may also be a painful process for those caught in the change; imagine how the guy in the 1950s felt when someone took his hammer away!