Perhaps making this difference appear clear and properly defined would be helpful for many people (CEOs included).

I compare the current point of view about innovation, in many cases, with… let's say a football team. Why? So much pressure on results that the rest doesn't relly matter.

And a given day, the 'mister' (coach) realizes that you can determine waht the team layout will be, who will be attacking, covering or defending, or how do you expect the opposite team to play… I mean, the PROCESS.

And this will absolutely influence the final score, but it is NOT the full picture… You cannot control referee decisions, an error on a certain instant of the match or if it will rain or not.

You CANNOT FULLY CONTROL THE FINAL SCORE!, I mean, the OUTCOME.

Same applies to innovation, I guess.

So I would honestly recommend people dealing with innovation (a crowd, having realized it or not) to focus on a good process, because this will be the only influence they can really put on the outcome.

Best regards, @lindegaard.

Innovation is an important topic in the study of sociology, business, entrepreneurship, sociology, and and most importantly in business, t..he word "innovation" is often synonymous with the output of the process….

The working title of the book is "Redefining Innovation," but don't let that throw you off. I feel (and mention within) that the definition isn't nearly as important as our individual, and collective, "contextualization" of innovation. That is, how, when, where, and whether at all we are motivated to use it, practice it, develop it, and expect it (of ourselves and of others).

There is still time to contribute to this publication. I welcome any and all thoughts — even contradictory, of course. But you can expect me to reply/debate/probe for your richest insights to support any of your positions. My goal is to help all of us advance our understanding and appreciation of what innovation truly is…and through such, become all the more compelled to both use it ourselves, and inspire others to use innovation — in all facets of life — as well.

Charlie Garland

imagination, creativity, innovation, implementation

a rose is a rose is a rose

hmmm?

innovation is innovation is innovation

that is if we can agree on what it is.

hmmm?

Seems like similar roads have been traveled in the past with terms such as:

quality

value

team

leadership

managing

My question is where is that wonderful concept CUSTOMER FOCUS, HELPING CUSTOMERS SOLVE PROBLEMS or PRODUCE BETTER RESULTS FOR THEMSELVES.

Good luck with your conundrums and paradoxes.

It is amazing that humankind ever got out of the caves originally with such convoluted thinking

One of the things I learned while working on and completing my doctorate in creative thinking is that I need to be consistent in my thinking in order to observe, measure and learn from observations in order to apply learnings acquired.

So I work with simple definitions

creative thinking

generation of new ideas or new combinations of existing ideas

innovative thinking (innovation)

improvement of existing ideas, methods, processes, products.

imagination

pretending in order to produce creative (new or new combinations of ideas)

then add to those how we might do each

inductive

deductive

reductive

productive

conductive

Good luck with your achieving some form of uniformity or conformity of the terms.

Of would that be counter-productive when dealing with the terms imagination, creative thinking, and innovation?

May I direct you to the work of Jonah Lehrer, Proust Was A Neuroscientist, in which he describes clearly the role artists have played in developing neuroscience's understanding of how the brain works. What he suggest is that we will never be able to understand how consciousness manifests itself scientically – and innovation semantically and scientifically requires conscious effort. How do you define "innovation" in order to be able to verify the veracity of your statement and how does your study show how innovation works cognitively?

Imagination – comes first – followed by

Creativity – described as imagination applied – followed by

Innovation – novel and useful creativity.

I am inclined to support the continuum.

Innovation can never be without the support of creativity and imagination.

Perhaps we should just focus on developing imaginations and innovation might follow.
http://thecreative-edge.blogspot.com

Rather than do away with the term, I agree that we should define/refine it. We should also accept that Innovation can be different things (to different people/organisations, in different circumstances). I have no problem with Innovation being both a process and an outcome… I would also agree that every company can carry its own definition of Innovation – the same holds for Knowledge – but that doesn't mean that the definition should not be discussed outside company walls. Quite the contrary, the more Innovation is discussed (and it is a lot), the more we need to agree on what we are talking about…

It strikes me that our definition/understanding of Innovation is influenced by our school of thought, by the Innovation Management approach. And of course, there are many schools and methods of Innovation Management around. One of these is TRIZ (a Russian acronym for Theoria Resheneyva Isobretatelskehuh Zadach or the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving). TRIZ is a Russian-origin Innovation Management approach which originated from the study of the world's leading patents. Without going into the details of TRIZ, it is important to understand that it recognizes that every solution to a problem has already been found/applied elsewhere, although possibly in another context, industry, or even scientific discipline… Hence, TRIZ is an Open Innovation approach, and it is very much relying on KM, although most of the TRIZ practitioners don't realize this. More on TRIZ can be found here: http://www.triz-journal.com

Now, TRIZ uses distinct levels of Innovation. In our practice, we have named and defined these levels as follows:

1. 'Actling' – A simple, easily found and almost standard solution

2. 'Knowling' – A solution found within the sector or industry

3. 'Borderling' – A solution found in another sector or industry

4. 'Researchling' – A solution found in another discipline of science

5. Invention – An 'invention' is a new, so far inexistent concept/creation

It seems that it is the Innovation at level 3 and above that constitutes potential competitive advantage. That is the reason why traditional best practice approaches do not lead to lasting competitive advantage. Please note that True Invention represents only a fraction of a % of all Innovation…

So, if we want to drive level 3 & 4 Innovation, then we need to be able to have conversations beyond the borders of our company, industry, scientific discipline, etc. For that to happen, Innovation needs to be defined, the level of conversations needs to be improved, the conversations themselves nurtured. This is also about culture. The culture of the Learning Organization is Innovation Culture!

@cdn

Discipline alone will not yield great innovations. Care must be given to the construction of the operational model, resources, and processes that encompass the act of innovating.

You asked "And how do you set objectives for non-incremental innovation?"

One objective is

"Ensure that X years from now we will have a new platform which forms a competitive basis for our business."

Another is

"Ensure that we have a foothold in the markets and technologies that will be relevant to our business in the future."

(The corresponding goal for incremental innovation is "Ensure that today's products will still be competitive tomorrow".)

Regards

Graham