Copy Innovation – Is Copying Innovation?
The latter makes me wonder whether we should view copying as a way of innovation. I know this is controversial and in many cases directly wrong seen from a moral perspective.
Companies that build their businesses on copying others products, technologies, services or processes also often run into serious legal issues so there are many reasons not to do this.
However, please consider these questions:
• Can a company use “copy innovation” to establish themselves within in a given industry?
• What if such a company can manage the legal issues and still be able to operate as a company in the long term?
• Can “copy innovation” over time help develop a more traditional style of innovation for companies as well as countries?
• What if the rules of business are changing and the new rules are written by companies – and countries – with a different perspective on innovation? That could turn into an interesting paradigm shift.
Just wondering… It would be great to hear your take on this.
In the pharmaceutical and biotech industries there is a lot of what you call Copy Innovation or ‘Me too’-drugs. Once a suitable drug-target has been found and proved likely to offer clinical benefits, other companies will often go for it too. Although often with the twist of their particular drug-technology.
Such ‘me too’ strategies reduces the risk of failing because of a bad target. But exposes you to legal issues. Also, one can argue the ‘me too’-strategy will result in innovation incremental rather than paradigm-shifting.
Interesting thought – I think if one organization can learn from and leverage another’s successful strategy/process/design, then great. It happens all the time and is just an accepted way of doing business, I suppose. Industries agree on standards and move forward that way, as well.
But if a company is stealing from another’s intellectual property verbatim, then no, that shouldn’t be referred to as “innovation”. That’s something else
The patent system is designed to encourage copying. Contact me if you would like to discuss.
There are several aspects to your questions, some of which may seem contradictory.
First, it is always essential to understand the competition in any sector one chooses to compete in (it never ceases to amaze me how many individuals and companies fail to do this basic research). Once one understands the existing market it is possible to determine how radical an innovation one wants to create. This will determine how much of an advantage will be established and just possibly, how long the life cycle will be. In this sense, just as in science, one stands on the shoulders of others who have gone before, rather than re-inventing the wheel. This is not copying per se, but simple prudence.
Next, copying is a margin limiting strategy but can be useful for some firms at particular stages of growth. The Japanese were well known for making cheap ‘knock off’ products starting in the ’50′s and now of course they are world leaders in many sectors. Now we see other Asian countries going through the same process. (You only have to look at the Apple products to see the remarkable quality of injection moulded parts from China that are so good that twenty years ago they could only have been made in Germany!)
At this stage a company is learning rapidly, probably developing new channels of distribution, and generally getting a toe in the door. During this phase companies will generally accept very low margins (even take losses) just to get going, knowing that within a reasonable horizon they will achieve higher quality and be able to command higher margins – and start to innovate.
The purpose of innovation is to create differentiation from others so that you do not allow the consumer to make direct price comparisons as this simply erodes margins.
This is a very simple answer to some very complex questions but I hope it helps.
John Arnott.
“Copy Innovation”? Will the buzzwords ever stop?…..What you describe is described as innovation in the most generous of definitions. This is a practice ‘fast followers’ employ to capitalize on markets and products proven by the leader of the field. While safe, it’s definitely has it’s down falls, and certainly isn’t (IMO) something you should pat yourself on the back for.
Not all ‘copying’ is equal, or bad
‘Copying’ from adjacent or even entirely separate industries can in some cases be a great prompter for business model innovation. Just think how many businesses set out to be the ‘Southwest Airlines’ of sector x, or the ‘Intel chip’ of sector y.
My definition of ‘real’ innovation is: making more out of what you have available than what already existed. What you see/ hear / read / experience is a kind of cognitive resource. So taking an idea and building on it is in my opinion indeed innovation, whether incremental or transformational. E.g. TRIZ is a very valuable innovation methodology, which often transports ideas from one industry to another seemingly unrelated one.
If you can bring your analogous product / service cheaper / better / easier / … then it arguably may be innovative in that aspect.
At the other hand, just copying something exactly is just copying, and may in many cases in fact amount only to theft of of intellectual property. In nature mimicry also exists, though of course that is not copying exactly but just one aspect
First off, Stefan…this is a great question, though I’m surprised it has to be asked. I’m even more surprised (and dismayed), however, at some of the answers here. Let me respond in a few ways:
1. Innovation (imho) is much more generic than even you are (rightly) describing. It’s NOT just about products and technology…in fact, it’s not just about business. It’s about creating new value. And that applies to any context, including personal, social, etc.
2. Hasn’t anyone here ever heard of TRIZ? This is one of the most important, truly revolutionary (again, imho) ways of thinking/innovating that I’ve ever heard. I have a similar concept in my book that I refer to as “the 10 recipes of innovation,” one of which is repurposing (i.e. copying). Trust me, copying is an extraordinarily valuable method of innovation. And no, I’m not plugging my book (the above isn’t the title, btw).
3. Yes, there are legal concerns, and we should all be aware of and respect them. But that does not mean that you walk away from a good idea…a great analog! Let’s not confuse copying with a spectrum that runs from outright stealing to intelligent mimicking. These are completely different animals.
4. Please keep asking such questions. We all learn from the many answers.
As a designer, who prides himself as an innovator and a creative thinker copying seems to be the lowest form of product development. I always pull for those who thought of “it” first. However, one could make a case that a company not taking full advantage of a design or innovation deserves for someone else gives it a go. Every now and then the industry or consumers benefit from this sort of thing. That being said I would never want to be labeled a “copier.”
Hi all, I appreciate your comments on this.
@Palermo, I acknowledge the moral wisdom in your comment. It is just amazing how often a fast-follower or a copier benefit more than the original innovator or inventor…