1Reader Recommendations


Mad Scientist

By: Jon Gertner
Can legendary Bell Labs--and its struggling parent, Alcatel-Lucent--be saved by a "crazy risk taker" who's betting that innovation can be captured in a mathematical formula?

feature-scientist2.jpg
feature-scientist3.jpg
  • Lab Results May Vary
    Bell Labs has the history, and Google--where engineers devote 20% of their time to personal projects--has the buzz. But other models of corporate innovation are also showing results.

Related Content


One afternoon this past summer, Jeong Kim took a seat at a quiet back table of a suburban New Jersey restaurant and removed a pen from his jacket pocket. Without speaking, Kim cleared away the salt and pepper shakers and brushed away some crumbs. Then he leaned forward and drew a square on the paper tablecloth. He paused. Then he drew another square behind the first and carefully transformed the diagram into a cube.

Our topic was innovation. A few months before, Kim said, he'd been invited to give a speech on the subject in China. But he wasn't precisely sure what to say. Half of the problem was linguistic. China's engineers might consider a technology "new" or "improved," but "innovative" defied exact translation. The other half of the problem was philosophical. "Everyone talks about innovation; everyone wants it," Kim remarked, but do we really understand what it means or what it takes?

Now 46, Kim has spent much of his professional life as an entrepreneur. In the late 1990s, he sold his second startup, Yurie Systems, to Lucent Technologies for around $1 billion; his personal share worked out to more than $500 million. The man clearly knows how to innovate. And yet that didn't make preparing for his speech any easier. So Kim laced up his running shoes. Maybe it was at the 10-mile mark, maybe the 12-mile mark. But at some point, he began to think of innovation as the options and contingencies a would-be innovator confronts every day. He envisioned a cube. One dimension, or one axis, could represent the impact of a particular innovative effort: Would it be incremental or revolutionary? Another axis could represent the process of innovation: Would it be achieved through painstaking analytic work or through artistic inspiration? The third axis was time itself: Was the innovation driven by the market today or in the distant future? None of this would tell his audience what or when to innovate--small inventions could be as lucrative as big ones and ideas for next year as disruptive as products for five years hence. Nor would this offer a foolproof strategy for how to innovate, since hiring an eccentric genius could prove as valuable as an overcaffeinated entrepreneur. But it did suggest to Kim that, for any company, innovation required visualizing the whole future, perhaps within something like this cube, a 3-D box where every idea in your portfolio was judged and plotted in relation to its potential impact, time to market, and creative process.

On the restaurant tablecloth, Kim kept drawing, explaining, labeling the corners and faces of the cube as he went along. What had begun as a PowerPoint slide for the Chinese ministers 7,000 miles away, he said, had since come to define his work as president of Bell Labs. For most of its history, Bell Labs served as the research division of AT&T. It was a fabled conglomeration of about 3,000 scientists that could lay claim to being the greatest innovation factory of modern times. In recent years, though, it has foundered as it became the research division of Lucent, now Alcatel-Lucent. The huge telecom-equipment manufacturer has stumbled and downsized in an unrelentingly difficult business climate, leaving the Labs with about 1,200 scientists and an ill-defined future.

Against this backdrop, Kim has said he's trying to "innovate innovation." It seems like the catchphrase of a marketer rather than an engineer, but there probably isn't any other way to describe his intentions. In the restaurant, Kim put down his pen. His drawing was finished. He had marked a wedge in the cube that showed the future of the Labs' innovations, all facing the side he called the "high-impact plane." To succeed, he explained, the Labs' research efforts would need to be concentrated in this sweet spot--an area that incorporated big and small ideas, balanced the revolutionary with the very useful, and involved quick turnarounds and far-off delivery dates. The mix and execution would have to be nearly flawless. Kim doesn't have any money to waste. And with the telecom-equipment business in rough waters--and the future of Alcatel-Lucent riding in part on the work of his people--he doesn't have much time, either. The odds of "saving" the Labs, as some people there describe his mission, seem to be against him. Then again, the odds have been against him his entire life.

From Issue 122 | February 2008
Sign in or register to comment.

Recent Comments | 1 Total

February 15, 2008 at 2:20pm

Anand Sanwal
This article is pretty interesting and Jeong Kim who heads up the group is undoubtedly a great innovator. Some of Kim's interesting insights & actions as the head of Bell Labs include his use of a venture capital type approach to innovation as "Kim has grouped the Labs' more audacious research efforts under what's now called Alcatel-Lucent Ventures, or ALV." This skunk-works for innovation makes a lot of sense. And several interesting ideas are emerging from these efforts which the article details. But the article is prone to a few flights of hyperbole including Kim's theory on innovation which is described as a cube. Although calling it dimensions and visualizing it as a 3-D box sounds impressive, there is nothing particularly amazing about this. This is a framework that many management consultants have come up with and hawked to their clients or that strategic venture groups have come up with. It's a simple matter of setting up a x, y, and z axis and putting each dimension down and then plotting points to your heart's content. It's a slight variation on some long-held views of innovation and not innovative in of itself. The idea that innovation needs to be managed as a portfolio of options is spot on but again, nothing particularly earth-shattering about that. The framework is pretty standard stuff. The second example of hype is Kim and his idea that you can quantify innovation in a mathematical formula. This sounds like a nice luxurious pursuit when you have a bunch of mathematicians on staff as you mention, but the portfolio view that a framework would offer is probably enough to help prioritize innovative opportunities. I see little to no prospect for a generally applicable mathematical formula for innovation coming to light, and I'm not sure this makes much sense to pursue. For innovation, the old adage that "it is better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong" seems to be pretty spot on. Management and innovation as science is inherently impossible no matter how interesting/alluring the prospect of this is. There is no way to say "Add this + this" and you'll have a great company or you'll have an innovation. I'm sure such a formula will result in a book which will sell thousands of copies because this type of mathematical elixir is what some are hoping for. But its value is dubious. Regards, Anand Sanwal Author, Optimizing Corporate Portfolio Management Investile Dysfunction blog - www.corporateportfoliomgmt.typepad.com

Special Editions?

Sponsored Sections

?
Job Search Center Job Search Center
Content from CareerBuilder in partnership with FastCompany.com

Advertiser Links