Just read James Dyson's Wired blog post called "
In Praise of Failure", characterizing the trail-and-error nature of innovation.
Overall, I found his characterization of invention dead-on. However, I've noticed that
Dyson Labs tends to use the same basic mechanism (
centrifugal force) and applies it to all his new creations (e.g. the cyclone and air multiplier technologies). If each of his creations consisted of a novel mechanism, would the failure rate be much higher? Or is it an inventor's process that is key to successful innovation (with a healthy dose of failure, of course)?
It appears that each inventor has their own style: Edison would exhaustively prototype an idea, Dyson uses the "template" approaches, and others use whatever they are most comfortable with. And that might be the most important take-home message of this article: invention is a creative activity, and so it must be done in a way that allows the inventor maximum inspiration.