Incremental Approach versus Evolutionary Steps—Might the Terminology Shift?

It’s only one example that recently received considerable media coverage. Still, it is a situation where the term evolutionary steps was used in media accounts of the auto industry, an industry previously described in the press as taking an incremental approach. Perhaps, it’s just semantics. But, in the media earlier this month, Jon Lauckner, the Chief Technology officer of General Motors, used the term evolutionary steps to describe GM’s approach to developing driverless cars.

Lauckner was quoted in the September 7, 2014 Wall Street Journal article “GM Expects to Offer Hands-Free Driving by 2016” written by Jeff Bennett and Joseph B. White. In the article, Lauckner said, “we are continuing to move forward with evolutionary steps.” Lauckner’s use of the term evolutionary steps to describe GM’s pursuit of driverless cars also appeared in other media outlets around the same time.

This contrasts with not long ago, when we’d often see the term incremental used to describe the auto industry’s approach to technology. An example is the May 22, 2014 Wall Street Journal article “Plane Maker Looks to Roll Out New Jets Piecemeal” (titled “Boeing CEO Wants Incremental Innovation, Not ‘Moon Shots’,” in the online version where it was dated May 21, 2014). According to this article, Boeing’s CEO said it is “looking to mimic incremental product development trends in the auto and consumer electronics sector.” Notice that the auto industry approach is described here as incremental, not as evolutionary steps. I discussed this Wall Street Journal article in my May 2014 newsletter, where I praise Boeing for abandoning moon shots, but point out that value of evolutionary steps rather than an incremental approach, which has the connotation of moving forward in very tiny increments.

Another example is the article “Google, Automakers Differ on Path to Driverless Cars.” Appearing in the July 2, 2014 issue of Newsday, this is an excellent article about how Google’s approach to driverless cars differs from that of the auto industry. The auto industry favors a much more gradual approach to driverless technology than does Google, which advocates a bolder, more moonshot-like approach.

The Newsday article uses terminology such as incremental to describe the auto industry’s approach. Regarding automakers, the article says, “most favor an incremental approach to self-driving cars, in which features such as lane centering and parking assistance are gradually integrated into vehicles.” To me, what Newsday describes seems closer to evolutionary steps than to very tiny increments. Still, probably because of its more gradual progression, it is described as incremental.

Furthermore, the media is not the only place where the term incremental is used this way. I find that when I discuss my evolution versus revolution work with others, it is not unusual for people to use the term incremental when talking about change that is not radical or revolutionary. But, I think the term evolutionary steps is a better way to describe change that is not revolutionary. Evolutionary steps are not huge, risky jumps, yet they are not merely changes that occur in extremely tiny increments.

According to my research, success generally comes from taking evolutionary steps, not from radical jumps. So, I think it’s great that GM’s Chief Technology officer described that company’s driverless car efforts as “moving forward with evolutionary steps”. That terminology has the right connotation for what it generally takes to develop successful innovation. And, by taking an evolutionary approach, GM is more likely to succeed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *