“Second theory”: A novel innovation enhancement methodology

One of the most potent failure factors for innovative projects is the human tendency to hold on to the original theory of the matter at hand. Early on when few relevant facts are known, the human mind comes up with a theory to explain the situation, and this theory, psychologically, subsequently amplifies every supportive new fact, and all the while suppresses every new fact that is inconsistent with this early theory. The net result is that the innovator holds on to a debunked theory. This leads to a long and costly R&D pathway that ends in an impasse. The “Second Theory” methodology calls for the researcher to come up with a second theory of the situation, a theory that is incompatible with the prime theory. The methodology then calls for the formality of `pro' and `con' arguments for both theories, and for an update of these arguments in light of new insight gained throughout the progress of the innovative effort. This procedure helps the innovator to remain objective between his early adopted `pet theory' and the alternative theory that may gain weight given the newly discovered insight. A `third theory' and a forth one, may be called for, depending on the complexity of the matter, and on the size of the innovation team. Often times the two or more leading theories remain in play, and no single theory dominates. In that case one would practice several optional mathematical protocols to “fuse” these theories into a useful co-existence. Three such protocols are offered here: probability based resolution, dimensionality based resolution, and validity distribution scale.