Which is more important, idea or execution?

 When I started working in advertising, there was a culture of ‘the idea is everything’. But what I quickly came to realize is that the execution is also very important. In some cases it’s even more important than the idea.

Looking at innovation in other industries, the media don’t often talk about it in terms of idea and execution. Looking at it through that lens brings an interesting light to bear on the subject.

The idea of a ‘digital music player’ is a great example.

Between 1998 and 2000 there were plenty of executions of that idea brought to market. They had names like MPMan F10, The Diamond Rio PMP300, Nomad, RaveMP 2100, and Personal Jukebox PJB-100.

And I’m sure most people would have been content with most of the aforementioned had Apple not launched the iPod, which took the execution of that idea to another level.

I won’t presume to know what people loved about the iPod, but I do know what I liked about it.

I liked its simplicity of use, the fact that you didn’t need to know anything about computers, the advertising, the way it synched with your computer, the name, the way it felt in the hand and the way it looked, not to mention its core functionality.

For me it wasn’t one thing that made it great, it was the sum of its parts.

Cut to 10 years later. Apple has sold over 300 million iPods and at the peak of the market had a 74% share (with the advent of smartphones, it’s now a declining market).

But Apple is probably one of the most case-studied companies when it comes to innovation. How about a more analogue example of the idea/execution dynamic?

Between the 1912 and 1984 Olympics, the US cycling team didn’t win a single medal.

Wind resistance is one thing that slows a cyclist down. That was nothing new in 1984, and high-end cycling equipment was designed to reduce drag where possible. Most equipment was standard across competitors, with athletic performance being the main differentiator.

But in the lead-up to The Games, the US team committed to executing the idea of ‘a more aerodynamic bike and rider’. Among other things, engineers working for the team created aerodynamic helmets, disc wheels, airfoil frame tubing and slick skin suits, shoes and special components. By the end of the design process, the seats were the only piece of standard equipment on the bikes.

The US won 12 medals at the ‘84 Olympics, and much of the equipment became standard for elite cyclists thereafter. Athletic performance was, of course, a big part of that success. But an even bigger part of it was due to equipment innovation.

Once again, it wasn’t one thing that produced the result, but a series of innovations that got closer to the best possible expression of the idea.

In both the iPod and US cycling examples, the execution component was clearly the determinant of success. But if that’s the case, what function does the idea serve?

I think it depends on the context, but most of the time the idea is the catalyst for the execution.

Sometimes it will tightly define it, and can act as an objective to work towards (such as cycling). And maybe this is the case in more established categories. But in other examples the idea may be broader, and is more likely to be defined by the execution. And maybe this is truer for cutting edge scientific and technological innovation, where new technology is created then finds an application (e.g. digital music players).

Conclusion?

For me, execution is everything. Without a great execution, a great idea doesn’t have any tangibility, and therefore doesn’t have any value. I don’t want to discount the importance of great ideas, but what I’m saying is it’s the difference between talking about doing something (the idea), and actually doing something (the execution).

That being the case, it raises a couple of points for me:
- What is ‘execution’?
- If great execution is so important, what are the conditions required to create it?

Two subjects to investigate further. Another post, another time.