dfuhriman

Replied in another comment, but posting here to reply to your comment too.

This is also good advice and a good book.

What I add to this aspect of innovation is a differentiation between standardizable work and original work. OP's approach to creating systems are different for each.

The other thing I define is the roles in innovation; creatives, systematics, and bureaucrats. The problem I see with OP is that creatives usually cannot implement the systemization that is required for the "franchise prototypes", let alone manage the system.

This is also good advice and a good book.

What I add to this aspect of innovation is a differentiation between standardizable work and original work. OP's approach to creating systems are different for each.

The other thing I define is the roles in innovation; creatives, systematics, and bureaucrats. The problem I see with OP is that creatives usually cannot implement the systemization that is required for the "franchise prototypes", let alone manage the system.

The problem you are experiencing is a result of the lack of systems and processes in your business.

You need to make an important hire- you are missing a systematic. See, creatives like you are awesome at solving problems but hate to have structure and order because it doesn't allow you 100% freedom. But, as a result, you just have 100% creativity/problem solving- which is draining. The worst thing is, you can't even create the order you need to manage these things.

Systematics create structure and order in dynamic environments.

I wrote a book about this and other problems with innovation and how to solve them. It will be published later this year, but happy to provide an advanced copy to help work through seeing the problems you are facing.

The systematics in your business are meant to free you from the ongoing crap that you are experiencing.

I address some simple framing of how to define "good" and "bad" in the article. I think we can borrow from US Declaration of Independence- anything that helps preserve and promote the "self-evident, inalienable rights" is good.

Edit: my first comment above was a tl;dr - but I suggest reading the whole article.

Here is an article I have been working on. I am interested in hearing feedback from HN community.

Premise is we can measure effects of decisions and define morality on what happens. If outcomes are good: moral. If outcomes are bad: immoral.

Thanks.

This is great.

Yes, we will begin posting on the blog in the next couple of weeks. Plan on sending out updates to the emails that register for updates. These updates will also include at times screen shots and additional information on the feature set.

I am part of this team. We are already funded and building the product right now. I understand the concerns about just testing out an idea. But we will be rolling out the launch in the next couple of months.

Right- and are we doing ourselves a diservice by having "Too Big to Fail"- and having companies grow past the optimal size? Once it is too large, each employed person's output is smaller than what it could be in a smaller company. Which is why a lot of people leave large companies to launch start-ups and why a lot of start-ups that are acquired fail when in a larger and bureaucratic system.

It is a theory that the organization internally continues to grow- and so net income per capita decreases or is increasing at a decreasing rate.

In other words: Companies grow by the engineers, handed over to accountants and then to the lawyers. And then they die.

Great idea. Looking forward to my first candy.