『The Innovators Studio with Phil McKinney』のカバーアート

The Innovators Studio with Phil McKinney

The Innovators Studio with Phil McKinney

著者： Phil McKinney
無料で聴く

Forty years of billion-dollar innovation decisions. The real stories, the hard calls, and the patterns that repeat across every organization that's ever tried to build something new. Phil McKinney shares what those decisions actually look like. Phil was HP's CTO when Fast Company named it one of the most innovative companies in the world three years running. He co-founded a company and took it public. Now he runs CableLabs, the R&D engine behind the global broadband industry. This isn't theory. It's what happened. And what you can see coming if you know what to look for. Running since 2005, originally as The Killer Innovations Show, now The Innovators Studio. Tens of millions of downloads. Full archive at killerinnovations.com. New episodes at philmckinney.com.Copyright 2005-2026 Techtrend Group LLC. See philmckinney.com マネジメント・リーダーシップ リーダーシップ 個人的成功 経済学 自己啓発
エピソード
  • How to Tell a Good Decision From a Lucky One

    How to Tell a Good Decision From a Lucky One
    2026/07/08
    You trust your gut because it's been right before. But "right" is exactly the thing you've been measuring wrong. A hitter never has this problem. His batting average is honest. It counts hits, nothing else, across a whole season, and he can't argue with the number. Your gut is supposed to work the same way: every decision an at-bat, every result feedback, a career sharpening your instincts the way a season hands a hitter a real number. But you keep your own scorebook. You mark every win as good judgment the second it lands. The trouble is that a skilled call and a lucky one produce the same win. In your book they look identical. Train your gut on that for thirty years and it grows certain about things that were never true. I know, because I trained mine that way. The Award and the Bankruptcy At twenty-eight, I won, and the win felt like proof. I was at a company called ThumbScan, and I took a piece of government security technology and repackaged it for the business PC market. We called it PCBoot. PC World named it Security Product of the Year at COMDEX in Las Vegas, in front of the whole industry. I drew the obvious conclusion. My gut was good. I could see what the market wanted before the market did. Except I didn't see it coming. In early 1988, computer viruses became front-page news. The New York Times ran it on the front of the business section, the story spread to nearly every paper in the country, and overnight every company in America decided it needed security. My product was already built and sitting on the shelf when the panic arrived. I had built a solution that needed a problem, and the people writing and spreading those viruses are the ones who handed it one. It was nothing I did. I hit the timing right, and the timing was luck. It took an honest audit, years later, to admit that, and the same look turned up the opposite story. The other ThumbScan product was the one I was proudest of. It put fingerprint security on a personal computer, the first one under a thousand dollars you could attach to a PC. Your thumb instead of your password. The reasoning was sound and the technology worked. The market wanted none of it. PCs were barely in homes yet, biometrics sounded like science fiction, and the company bled cash and folded. That product wasn't worse thinking than the one that won the award. It was the same thinking, aimed at an idea that turned out to be twenty-five years early. Today it sits on every phone, and hundreds of millions of people use it before breakfast. I wasn't wrong about the concept. I was wrong about the clock, and the clock runs mostly on luck. The award and the bankruptcy came out of one gut, separated only by the year each idea landed in. What I did, years later, has a name. I ran the version of events that didn't happen, stripped the result off each decision, and looked at the call cold. That's counterfactual thinking, and it's the whole skill. It's uncomfortable, because the result already handed you a verdict and now you're reopening it. It's also the only feedback that makes you better. Why Your Results Lie to You None of this is your fault. It's a measurement problem. Your gut got trained on bad data, and it had no way of knowing. The more decisions you've stacked up, the more confident it's become, and confidence built on a bad stat is worse than no confidence at all. A junior person knows they're guessing. Twenty years in, the guessing feels like knowing. Your own record is full of the same thing. Wins you credited to your own judgment when they really came down to timing, or to a competitor's mistake you had nothing to do with. Good calls you stopped making because one of them lost, even though losing was always on the table and the call was still right. None of that is carelessness. You recorded every result accurately. You just recorded the wrong thing, and then you trained on it. The world isn't helping. Every outcome now arrives with its explanation already attached, ten confident takes by lunchtime, most written backward from the result. I covered that warning in "Hindsight Is Not 20/20." So go back and run the audit on yourself. Rebuild what you knew on the day you decided, set the result aside, and ask whether the call still holds up without it. The hard part is doing this to wins, because taking apart a success while you're still proud of it feels like bad manners and bad luck at once. That's the reason your wins are where your worst lessons hide. Read Your Competitors' Moves You just watched me run this backward, over my own record. It points two other directions too. The first is sideways, at everyone else. The same move works just as well on decisions that aren't yours. When a rival's bet pays off, the instinct is to copy it. When it craters, the instinct is to swear it off. Both stop at the result. So rebuild their decision the way you rebuilt your own. Say a competitor ships a feature and it takes off, and three teams in your space scramble to copy...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • What Half of 13 Reveals About Your Thinking

    What Half of 13 Reveals About Your Thinking
    2026/07/29

    What is half of thirteen?

    Stop. Answer it. Don't think ahead, just answer.

    You said 6.5. I know you did, because everyone does. Nobody chose to answer that question. Your brain solved it before you decided whether you even wanted to play along. That's the power of a question: whoever hears it cannot stop themselves from answering. Ask a person something and their mind starts working on it right away, whether they wanted to or not.

    If you gave that answer on a math test, it would get ‌marked as correct. Give that same answer on a test of innovation, and you're average, because that's where everyone stops. Push beyond the obvious answer, and that's what puts you top of the class.

    Here's the version of the question that changes everything: How many ways could you answer "what is half of thirteen?"

    Sit with that for a second, because the honest reaction most people have is mild panic. There's the obvious one. Then what?

    Split the number down the middle and you get a 1 and a 3.

    Split the word into syllables and you get "thir" and "teen."

    Every one of those is a real answer. None of them occurred to you the first time, because the first time, your brain wasn't looking for options. It was looking for an answer to the question.

    I've run this exercise for years in my Innovation Boot Camp and the Innovation Essentials Workshop. One professor who uses my book in their class now opens every semester of her course with it. The class brainstorms as many answers to the question as possible. The record so far is thirty two different ways to answer that one question. And remember, asked the first way, that same question only gives you one answer.

    This isn't just a classroom trick. Researchers have measured this exact mental muscle since the 1960s, asking people how many uses they could find for a brick. Some people list four. Some list forty. The gap between those two people has nothing to do with intelligence. It's whether their mind treats the first answer as the end of the search or the beginning of one.

    Practice Exercise: Take one recurring question: a decision at work, a plan for the weekend, even "what should I make for dinner." Before you settle for the obvious answer, ask "how many ways could I answer this?" and write down at least ten. Not ten good ones, just ten. See where the eleventh one takes you.

    This part 1 of a three-part series on how to use questions as the skill behind better thinking, better ideas, and better innovation. Next week, we get into what actually separates an average question from a great one.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
  • When One Word Steers Your Answer

    When One Word Steers Your Answer
    2026/08/05
    In 1974, a psychologist named Elizabeth Loftus showed a group of people a film of a car accident. Afterward, she asked half the group one question: how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? The other half got the same question with a single word swapped: smashed instead of hit. The smashed group estimated higher speeds. Same film. Same crash. One word. A week later, everyone came back and answered a new question: Did you see broken glass? There was no broken glass in the film. The smashed group remembered it anyway. One word inside one question changed what people reported seeing. Then it reached back and rewrote what they remembered. Somebody did this to you this week. A question steered your answer, and you never noticed. Last week, I showed you that your brain cannot refuse a question. You hear one, you start answering, whether you agreed to or not. This week is the other side of that power. If every question forces an answer, then how the question is built decides which answer you get back. Questions have an anatomy. Almost nobody looks at it. Before we're done, a motorcycle taxi in Bangkok is going to show you what a question built right can find. Let's get into it. ===== Every question you ask carries three things, whether you put them there on purpose or not. It carries assumptions, the things it treats as already settled. Ask "Why did the launch fail?" and you've ruled the launch a failure before anyone speaks. It carries scope, the range of answers it permits. "Coffee or tea?" permits exactly two answers. "What should we drink?" opens the room. And it carries a load, the specific words that steer the answer. That's what "smashed" did. Nobody in that study felt steered. The steering is invisible to the person answering, and most of the time to the person asking too. Once you see the parts, you can take any question apart. Take "why did the launch fail?" one more time: it assumes failure before anyone answers, its scope is only explanations, and "fail" is the loaded word doing the steering. Hold on to that one; we'll rebuild it later. Let's start with the ones built to do damage. The worst question in business "That presentation was fantastic, wasn't it?" That's a tag question: a statement dressed up as a question, built so every answer is closed off except agreement. The person asking isn't really asking, not in any way that risks hearing something different. They're collecting a signature. When lawyers use them in court, it's called leading the witness. When managers use them in conference rooms, it's called alignment. Tag questions did damage for years at HP, in the design reviews, every product went through before customer briefings. One review was for a prototype, one of our first laptops in what's now called the "thin and light" category. The product team wanted to lead that category without straying too far from what already sold. That's the tradeoff tag questions live in. Nobody wants to sound negative about it. So the pushback arrived dressed as agreement: "We'll still have four USB ports, right?" You don't get thin and light with a case full of legacy ports, and the designer knew it. I watched the exasperation cross his face. Before it became a battle, I stepped in and rebuilt the question: "What's the right mix of ports for this segment, and why?" Then: "Have we tested that mix with the target customers?" The answer came back fast. "No need. We know what the customer wants." I nearly smacked my forehead. One rebuilt question had uncovered the real problem, and it wasn't ports. It was an untested assumption sitting in the middle of a flagship product plan. That's what tag questions cost you. The entire point of asking a question is to get information, input, or ideas. A tag question collects compliance instead. Enough of them, and people stop bringing you anything you don't already believe. The two kinds of good questions Real questions are split into two categories: factual and investigative. A factual question retrieves information. How many units did we sell last week? You may not know the answer, but you know exactly how to get it: one phone call. Factual questions keep the world running. They just can't uncover anything because they only retrieve what somebody already knows. An investigative question can't be answered with a yes, a no, or a lookup. It's divergent: more than one correct answer exists, so the person answering has to go investigate. You felt this difference last week. "What is half of thirteen?" is a factual question. "How many ways could you answer: what is half of thirteen?" is an investigative question. One is arithmetic. The other is the one that a classroom answered thirty-two different ways. Socrates built his entire way of teaching on investigative questions, pushing every student past "I've heard it said that..." until they could say what they themselves thought, and why. The first step toward knowledge, he insisted, is ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません