George Anders of the WSJ has an interesting piece on how innovation-dependent firms are attempting to extend the longevity innovative capacity in their researchers. According to Anders, Northwestern Prof. Benjamin Jones has found that, “Innovators are productive over a narrowing span of their life cycle.”
The article explains that Jones examined biographical data of 700 Nobel laureates and well known inventors of the past century and found that, in the early 20th century, leading innovators averaged slightly more than 36 years at the time of their greatest innovation.
In more recent decades, innovation from those under the age of 30 (think Brin and Page of Google) has become more common. This is because there have been many ‘booming’ fields over the last few decades that have been wide open to innovation and pioneer exploration.
Occasionally, Mr. Jones says, booming new fields “permit easier access to the frontier, allowing people to make contributions at younger ages.” That could account for the relative youth of Internet innovators, such as Netscape Communications Corp. founder Marc Andreessen and Messrs. Page and Brin. But “when the revolution is over,” Mr. Jones finds, “ages rise.”
Unwilling to see researchers at peak productivity for only a small part of their careers, tech companies are fighting back in a variety of ways. At microchip maker Texas Instruments Inc., in Dallas, executives are pairing up recent college graduates and other fresh research hires with experienced mentors, called “craftsmen,” for intensive training and coaching.
This system means that new design engineers can become fully effective in three or four years, instead of five to seven, says Taylor Efland, chief technologist for TI’s analog chip business. Analog chips are used in power management, data conversion and amplification.
At Sun Microsystems Inc., teams of younger and older researchers are common. That can help everyone’s productivity, says Greg Papadopoulos, chief technology officer for the Santa Clara, Calif., computer maker. Younger team members provide energy and optimism; veterans provide a savvier sense of what problems to tackle.
The article goes on to provide more examples from firms dependent on innovation for continued success and their efforts to extend the “innovation life cycle.”
Of course, the piece also sites some examples of “older” innovators that buck Prof. Jones research findings, citing domains where expertise is so specific that it takes a decade or more to truly understand the nature of the problems to be solved and opportunities to be chased.
Does your firm get most of its innovation out of younger or older workers? Does this free or constrain talent?
What about you? Has your innovative capacity increased with age and experience or decreased? For your current field, do you need years of experience before you can innovate?