What are the differences between companies innovating and governments governing?
We are in a new era of internet based companies launching everyday solving problem X and trying to do it as quickly as possible in the most natural way for users. Why? Because solving a problem that many people have and making the solution as easy/nature as possible spreads like wildfire - Word Of Mouth.
We are also in an era where a group of people called the government decide what is ok to do, and what's not ok to do. These choices affect everyone, from kids to large multi-national companies.
So looking at how governments solve problems and how companies solve problems and looking at how each group is funded to continue is worthwhile I believe.
How companies seem to operate:
If I had to sum up new companies, solving problems in new innovative ways I would have to pick this one photo.
What it shows is the design as engineers designed it; a pathway that goes around the corner vs what the users actually care about - solving their problem with the least amount of steps ( pun intended ).
The odd thing that happens is as a new company validates that a problem exists and starts to find the dirt path their users are using is: they slowly move their focus from the users problem and how users currently solve this problem to focusing more on actions that will lead to more revenue ( I'll talk more about this later ) . These changes are slow in the beginning but if left to grow sometimes can ruin the entire product or breaks the product-market fit that the company had previously.
With the speed that the internet is moving at along with the growth of new companies that are dubbed internet companies, its leading to a really intense acceleration of problems being solved quicker and quicker with fewer steps required.
The end result of these ongoing renovation may simply be to remove humans from the equation and thus have even more throughput of solving those problems....but that's a whole other essay.
In traditional companies, you succeed by having positive cash flow. This means if you're not solving a problem that users care about, you have no users paying you and therefore you don't have a running company. This is how the free market works.
TL;DR focus on users; solve a problem they have with least steps; make it easy; move fast.
How Governments seem to operate
Governing is defined as 'responsible for making and enforcing rules and laws'. This definition could be broken down to what rules and processes can we create that will allow our people to prosper and therefore country to prosper. This in hand is close to the definition of Democracy being the "rule of the commoners".
Currently, the ways laws are passed are via items called bills. Looking up the average time it takes for a bill to be rejected or approved is '263.57 days!' - seems really slow.
So the process for innovation to take part in the US government system is the people voting in the correct people in order to vote on denying or approving bills. Bills require the majority of votes to win.
This makes sense when we assume that the politicians 'the people' voted in are working for 'the people'. This is quite flawed. To become voted in you required people to know who you are and why they should vote for you. It's a costly exercise. Where does the capital come to fund this? Donations of course and anyone including for-profit companies are allowed to make these donations.
I'm sure that these people and companies donating millions are doing it just for the greater good of democracy and not so they can get favor on certain bills....surely. One would hope.
Why are you drawing a comparison between these two?
When directly comparing new internet companies solving problems and bills being introduced the main difference is the turnaround time (not measuring impacts of what's being introduced). Companies have turned around times defined in the hours whereas the Government has as we see above an Avg turnaround time of 263 days - and that's just to approve or deny; NOT ACTION IT.
As companies continue to live in a world where money is defined as free speech? How can we expect the correct real problems that 'the people' want to be solved to be solved by a government? currently, we are living in a world where the 'free market' can solve any problem it wants to, granted that it does not break the law. But then again, who defines the law? the government, who is a group of people funded largely by companies - so is the government governing? or are the companies? What will this lead to?
I see two groups of companies, those driven by solving problems and helping people and solves looking to make more money - as you would guess its the latter that are doing the majority of the funding of campaigns.
I believe are currently seeing a collision between the two groups of companies I believe.
I'm unsure who will win.
Who do you think?
To answer the original question.
What are the differences between companies innovating and governments governing? Intent and Turnaround time.
PS. Everything above is my own thoughts and speculations.
Thanks to Dylan and Zane for helping with this.