When I did a grumpy post on innovation on my internal blog I think Ian or Matthew of Backstage pointed out that innovation should apply to all areas of the BBC including our relationship with licence fee payers. That’s the kind of innovation I can buy into…

Dan’s blog is the beautiful City of Sound

http://www.cityofsound.com/

Dan said:

“Read your stuff. Interesting perspective, but I think there’s more to it. First up, the BBC isn’t as innovative as you might think – but that depends on what market/culture you’re judging it by. Either way, innovation is essential to its future, and should be nurtured. The key point is design, as you note – which isn’t the same as innovation. That’s a different area and more to do with execution, perhaps. The principle change from a design-led perspective is the user-centred approach, which is fundamentally a challenge for the older governance systems of Board, Trust, OfCom etc.

Design tends towards the interest of the user, when done successfully, and that’s sometimes complex to integrate with strategy, which traditionally was in the interest of the business. However, businesses today, if they’re not oriented towards the user, have a big problem strategically. A recent HBR piece by Bezos indicateshow Amazon allegedly do this well. Everything is about the customer. And indeed, that works for them, in the physical sales business. When they don’t deliver on their promise, and don’t orientate around the customer, as with the Kindle, it won’t work. That’s the difference. It’s why DRM is such a complex issue – it’s never in the interests of the customer (no matter what some might say about that paying for innovation in content production in the long term, that’s not the case). And yet it’s in the interests of the business (and related integrated businesses). That’s one of those issues that shears companies and industries apart, and you have to ask what role the Board/OfCom might have in that space?

So, picking that apart. Innovation is necessary – and there are many flavours of that (see the recent-ish Economist survey on that, which is pretty good). That’s quite different to design, which is more about execution. Policymaking should be creating frameworks that enable both, and orientate towards the interests of the user. That way business is catered for too, in the long term. Make sense?

As to whether Ed Richards blogs or not, I’d say this: not everybody should be a blogger! In fact, only those with an aptitude for it should do it, really. Just as only those with an aptitude for broadcasting should be in front of the camera or mic. Should Ed Richards make a broadcast, perhaps, in order to qualify him for the role? I’m not sure you’d espouse that, but it’s equally valid. So I think it’s tricky for a minister to ever understand in detail the sector they’re responsible for.

However, I don’t think it’s a problem that should get in the way. A deep understanding of the sector, from a strategic, cultural or economic viewpoint, is possible without having to do it. Just as transport ministers don’t have to drive trains (thank god). That’s just whether they’re any good at their job or not (and sharper management of *that* would be welcome.)

Blogging is best done by those with an aptitude for it, just as with anything else. It’s up to Richards as to whether he has that or not.”