Often, an innovative technology takes far longer than we expect and hope to take effect. Sometimes it can take decades. There are plenty of past inventions that were ahead of their time. Think of the Sinclair C5, which was launched in the 1980s, then look at the Tesla. Obviously the TESLA looks fantastic next to the C5! The point is the concept was similar but the ‘time’ was different. Read on for more.

I think it is Inkjet’s time, but the timing is different in each market it is entering largely as the factors, structures and cultures are so different. That’s partly what makes industrial printing so interesting. 

As with other transformations in manufacturing, the eco-system and production culture has to shift in order for the value to be realised. Here we look at some great takeaways from the Tim Harford book, Adapt. 

Tim Harford makes a really good point. 

Humans tend to fall in love with the glamour and the glitz of the tech, while ignoring the reality and restrictions of the day. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Nor will a new market for inkjet!

Hype occurs as we all tend to focus only on the sugary eye candy (such as 3D Printing) yet think too little about the workday social and organisational changes needed to unlock its potential. Change doesn’t happen in a vacuum and many innovations don’t take off until the structure and pervading culture has developed around them to the extent to make the innovation possible. 

Electricity was available as an invention and should have blossomed in US  Manufacturing back in the 1890’s, yet it wasn’t until the 1920’s that electric motors delivered on their promise and productivity soared.

The reason for this 30-year delay? 

Because replacing steam with electricity at that time was not practical, so it did not make sense. Replacing the single huge engine with a huge electric engine changed little, so why bother?

The actual new technology (electric motors) only really worked well when everything else had changed enough to be able to accommodate them.

As Harford points out, “Electricity really only triumphed only when the factories themselves were reconfigured for it. Driveshafts were replaced by wires, huge steam engines were replaced by dozens of small motors. Factories spread out, more workers had direct responsibility for their own machines, there was natural light for workers, better pay and better work conditions ensued. This is how new technology and the economic value makes a significant impact on the standard of life, health and equality.”

The point is it takes more than a clever singular technology development to realise a step change. 

The electric motor was a wonderful technology once the culture and system shifted and we changed the everyday detail that surrounded it.

So what about the future of inkjet then? 

Harford points to 3 lessons we can all learn from past:

1. Don’t be dazzled by the fancy stuff 

2. Humble innovations can change the world if they’re cheap enough 

3. Always ask, ”To use this innovation well, what else needs to change?”

Just because something becomes possible, doesn’t mean that it quickly becomes the norm. Stars must align, cultures have to come into force and a whole system has to shift in order for revolutionary change to occur.

Harford concludes that in relation to printing,  the greatest innovation of all could actually have been paper. Not the Printing Press because without a cheap, mass-manufactured and widely available substrate then the economics of Printing just do not work. 

Interesting perspective!