Is the iPad proof that User-Led Innovation (and OneEyeDeer) is doomed?

Intersting story in the NYT today about how the iPad, and Apple products more generally I guess, are an example of how the "auteur model of innovation" (where one powerful runs the whole process) has led to exceptional results.

The author, Steve Lohr, also sites Avatar (now the highest grossing film of all time) as another example.

The vibe of the story is that in a world of crowd-sourcing/open innovation, big hits are often generated by a visionary with a plan.

To be clear, there's validity in that argument. I don't think anyone would disagree.

That having been said, it doesn't mean that user-led/open/crowd-sourced innovation is doomed.

Rather, use-led innovation (we'll focus on this one) has shown itself to be an incredibly powerful and somewhat under-utilised source of innovation. It's this under-utilisation that OneEyeDeer is trying to address by using the inherent ability of the Internet to reduce information and sharing costs.

It's that simple.

The problem user-led innovation (ULI) has is that the process is not as sexy or as flamboyant as a guy in a black polo saying "one more thing" and pulling an incredible piece of hardware out from nowhere, while the world waits in anticipation.

It's a long slow process of trial and error that is open to the world. No sudden displays of genius here. Rather, you get to see the innovation process in its full, ebbing and flowing glory. And like the tide it resembles, the truth is that user-led innovation has far more potential than a sudden storm-like event of an iPad launch, or a movie release.

That's because ULI (or the OneEyeDeer version of ULI, at least) aims to connect people from varying background with varying skills, knowledge and experience. From there they can continue to connect or they can branch off and take their pre-existing skills, and new-found knowledge, and work on even more issues.

What's more, we aim to take that open knowledge and break it down into bits that are re-usable. The ability to get scale from your, and my, effort cannot be underestimated and has the potential, whether through OneEyeDeer, or some other competitor down the track, to revolutionise innovation as we know it.

That's really at the heart of why we're so passionate about OneEyeDeer. It's because the process feeds back into the community and helps the community itself grow.

So, is the iPad proof that OneEyeDeer is doomed to fail?

I don't think so.

Instead I think it's proof that there are many different ways to "innovate". While many of us will never have the capacity, or chance, to be a Steve Jobs, we all have the opportunity to be part of OneEyeDeer.

And the truth is that, despite the hype, user-led innovation (and OneEyeDeer) has the potential to have a far greater impact on the lives of more people than an iPad or movie ever will.

Here's hoping it gets the chance it deserves.