This quote by Edward de Bono says it all:

"Removing the faults in a stage-coach may produce a perfect stage-coach, but it is unlikely to produce the first motor car."

Incremental innovation is important, and as suggested needs to consume more of the innovation resources in the portfolio. Gains in incremental innovation buffer the life cycle of the core businesses and provide a higher payback use of resources serving the core.

Bottom line, you need both radical and incremental innovation to have a viable future.

Companies need a balanced portfolio of incremental/quasi-radical/radical – and whatever that balance is (not equal parts) depends on the company, but if you don't set it as a goal, it's much less likely to happen.

Moreso, I think companies should view the process of creating/commercializing radical innovation just as important as the innovation itself…all the learning, the failure, the application of learning, the iterative experimentation/prototyping process to get to the 'decision' point, the culture and teamwork that occurs … are all very important for changing the company's culture to be more receptive (and able?) to radical innovation the next time – the process & the innovation matter and by doing it over and over you develop expertise (in success & failure), institutional knowledge, and increase your odds of a radical innovation.

Not that this is easy, but it's tremendously transformative…and those that don't even try at some point will disappear.

Delay can take more than 10 years in order to win pre-negotiation concessions!

Poor Communication don't help.

We must rethink the strategy !

I like disruptive approaches and I think that companies doesn’t see radical innovation as a good challenge because they live now with fear and they are not well informed.

A lot of Consultants are not prepared to help organizations with Radical Innovation and Organizations just want an event instead of working on that. Last year Rowan Gibson was here in Portugal (Lisbon) and he, with is marvelous work, mobilized people and some organizations to radical innovation. It was a wave. We need persistence! We need to tell a good story about disruption.

I believe that we don´t need five or seven years and I think that is not a question of time, but how to do it!

I don't like "incremental innovation" that's just another word for institutional timidity!

Radical innovation is the way a company can show its confidence. I don't agree it takes 5 to 7 years to show results – Look at Apple. The iPod was nothing to do with computers, nor was the iPhone. 2 years from design to market.

Look at HSBC, a conventional bank yet launched an on-line only version, First Direct in 12 months.

Look at Formula 1. New, radical designs every six months. You just need the culture to be in place!