Defensive innovation: Stop de-innovating
Explore how to combat de-innovation and unleash the constant potential for creativity in your projects to drive meaningful change and growth.
Duration: 0:52 | Size: 1.0 MB
It’s commonly thought that innovation depends on some sort of creative bursting forth. There certainly seems to be this sort of generative innovation where something new is deliberately made.
I wonder whether this kind of innovation is really so special and unique. I’m suspicious of explanations where “something magical happens”. So, I wonder if “creation” isn’t all around us all the time.
If it is, then why do we focus on this special, magical kind of innovation? If innovation is all around us, why don’t we see it more often?
I think this is because we see a lot of de-innovation. By that, I mean that the average project/effort spins off all kinds of new ideas. Mostly, these ideas are suppressed, diverted, or cancelled.
This means that “doing innovation” should focus at least as much on preventing de-innovation as on encouraging innovation.
Nobody takes you aside anymore
Print taught a generation when to stop. What we lose when the machines absorb the constraints that used to form us.
Your AI agents need a water cooler
Coordination is a property of the room, not the org chart. What that means when your coworkers are agents.
On the death of the author and the birth of the detector
Why worrying about AI authorship is lazier, and more prejudiced, than it looks.
The work of being available now
A book on AI, judgment, and staying human at work.
The practice of work in progress
Practical essays on how work actually gets done.
Memory is (almost) solved. time is next.
AI can't tell if a memory is two minutes or two weeks old. The fix isn't making models feel time — it's cache invalidation: an as-of stamp on every fact, a clock in the context, and a freshness window for anything volatile.
Did the state change? A simple test for whether work actually happened
Either something exists now that did not exist before, or it does not. A simple test for whether work actually happened, and what changes when you build your systems so they can't record anything else.
The work that remains
When AI handles implementation, the human job shifts from doing the work to understanding the work. Speed without understanding is just technical debt with better commit messages.
Manual fluency is the prerequisite for agent supervision
You cannot responsibly automate what you cannot do manually. AI agents speed up work for people who already know how to do it. They do not replace the need to learn the work in the first place.
Your process was built for a different speed
When work changes velocity, governance systems don't just fall behind. They become theater. And theater is worse than nothing—it gives you the feeling of control without any of the substance.