What is Innovation? (It’s Not Creativity)
This older post is a response to the many comments on my recent post: Don’t Confuse Creativity with Innovation
Innovation. Just the word or term itself is enough to start heated discussions. I experienced this once more as I got some interesting comments from Scott Berkun and Ralph Kerle in response to my Why CEO’s Don’t Get Innovation post in BusinessWeek.
One of Scott Berkun’s comments went like this “If we dropped the i-word, or at least attempted to define it, I think we’d get to the core of all this much faster.” This comment builds further on an interesting article, Good Beats Innovative Nearly Every Time, in which Scott urges us to loose usage of the word innovation.
I appreciate Scott’s comments as well as I enjoyed reading his article. However, as I believe innovation will become even more important for companies, I think we are stuck with the word and we can just as well get used to it. It will not go away.
The big question is how companies will define innovation to their situation. It does not really matter how academics, consultants or others define it; each company need to define this in a way that makes sense for their company, their employees and their partners. Then, they can start developing a common language on innovation that can help them build a strong innovation culture.
In another discussion related to my article, Ralph Kerle stated that innovation is an outcome. I have to disagree as I believe innovation is a process; not an outcome. The outcome is what you get out of an innovation process in which creativity plays a big role.
You can plan this process just as you can plan other management and business processes/disciplines such as sales, logistics and finance. You can also train people to become better innovators especially when you understand that innovation works best with a holistic approach. It needs to be about more than just products and technologies.
Innovation is beginning to look more like science than art, as we in many cases are now capable of taking previous patterns and experiences and use this to predict outcomes based on the input and processes we use. This maturity is one key reason why innovation is becoming even more important – and complex.
Both Scott Berkun and Ralph Kerle argue that we should forget about the term innovation. My response is that innovation is no longer a buzz word. It is here to stay and we can argue on definitions – which I always try to avoid, as I believe each company must find their own definition. But we can’t just pretend the term does not exist or should be replaced by another one. Those days are long gone.
Let me know what you think.
I'm with you on this one Stefan. I wrote a post over the weekend on the same topic.
I agree with Berkun that innovation is often poorly defined, but I think that's an argument for defining it more clearly, not for dumping it. The issue is that the process of innovation (and I agree with you that it's a process) is very broad, which in turn means that there are a lot of sub-categories. Incremental innovation looks quite different from radical innovation, and it requires different management skills, financial reporting methods and ideation processes – but they are still both innovation.
In the end, I think that the fact that we have resources like your website (and, ironically, Berkun's book The Myths of Innovation), which have many useful and actionable tips on managing innovation is sufficient to justify the use of the term.
Tim, I appreciate your comments. I assume the article you wrote and refer to is A Patent is Not a Business Model – http://timkastelle.org/blog/2010/03/a-patent-is-n…. It is a good read and I suggest others to take a look at it.
Thanks Stefan. I didn't want to get too self-promotional because my main objective was to make the comment, which is why I didn't link to the post. It was actually this one:
http://timkastelle.org/blog/2010/03/new-improved-…
which talks about the Berkun article directly, and the issues around innovation as a buzzword. It supports your last point:
"But we can’t just pretend the term does not exist or should be replaced by another one. Those days are long gone."
I think that's exactly correct!
Tim, I think it is a good thing to get different perspectives on the discussions on my site so I do not see a problem in others referring to articles or posts even if they are written by themselves. I trust our readers to share good insights and avoid spam. If not, then I will moderate
I like your second post as well and especially the penguin / eagle metaphor…
As a creator of ideas ('entrepreneur' being one who has actually made money from them, hence my following such discussions living in hope of the business lightbulb moment that allows me to claim that title) I have found these threads very interesting, if a tad depressing.
It is clearly accepted that 'innovation' is all things to all people, from academics to business leaders to politicians to… the public, and hence loses any real value as a well defined descriptive term.
But exist it does, with entire government departments, corporate divisions and huge funding structures devoted to 'it', so it is pretty important to grasp if one is to take advantage of all the opportunities swirling around the rallying cry. In particular if one wishes to bring an idea to fruition as a business.
I am minded of a major pitch I made once for a grant that rejoiced under the title 'Creative Innovations Fund'. Sadly unsuccessful. But in the spirit of 'if at first you don't succeed, find out why and don't repeat unnecessary errors' I badgered to find out why.
The answer was long in coming and short in everything, including value, as well as logic: 'It was too left field and hasn't been proven'.
My follow-up request for what, precisely was understood for 'creativity' and/or 'innovation' that was so at odds with mine, remains unanswered.
Suffice to say that I fully appreciate that any fool (mea culpa) can have a great idea, but turning it into an attractive, saleable product/service takes a lot more, with an awful lot more folk getting involved. And if one is lucky enough to manage the rocky waters the gatekeeper community represents, then you might end up with an 'innovation' which, in time, simply becomes a branded entity.
My background is advertising, if from the creative side. But the disciplines that career imposes are quite solid. And the basics are pretty clear. Getting a USP is a rare, happy event. Combining it well into an end-benefit proposition pretty much the perfect combo… so long as there is a need.
Sorry to be trite, but I do tend to agree with some notions suggested above that the term has been elevated (or is it debased?) to a meaningless buzz-phrase.
I have had the misfortune to be involved with too many business support entities that are attracted to my companies' activities but have certainly not understood innovation (or innovators) as I do. And also businesses that talk the talk but really have stopped at that point and allowed rhetoric to take over instead of keeping on and walking.
I was at a packaging event recently to promote a patented, awarded design. The show's title even had the word 'innovation' in it. But I was hard pressed to see any evidence of it anywhere, from the inbound mindset of those on the stands to the products on their shelves and the way they were being promoted… save for the use of the word 'innovation'. I now have a montage of scores of poster titles using it in all manner of incarnations.
So I hope guys like you can pin an definition of innovation down better than it is currently, such that those who claim to wish to embrace it have better idea themselves of what they seek and how best to find (or be open to it) and, more selfishly, guys like me can grasp what they are looking for and how they like it served up.
For now, a CEO mouthing off stuff in the media when a bunch of middle managers clearly didn't get the memo on long term seed nurturing over short term bean counting can be… frustrating.
Innovation is often perceived as a major undertaking, a massive task that requires oceans of time and resources.
People often forget that reusing something that already exists is also innovation – as in Peter Drucker’s famous example of selling refrigerators to eskimoes with the idea of using a refrigerator to keep things from freezing as opposed to keeping them cold. All you need to innovate is an idea.
Perhaps innovation would be an easier task to sell, if we emphasized that small innovations count too.
I agree innovation has become a term which is getting used too loosely and meaning anything and everything. I had written something similar
http://blog.ideaken.com/2010/02/eureka-moments-no…
on similar lines. Break through inventions are becoming rarer. What we seeing are incremental changes and improvements. These changes lead to products and services being termed as getting Better, but none of them are fundamental innovations.
I created the following definition: "Innovation is the beneficial introduction of something new".
This definition does the four most important things:
- It includes the aspect of novelty.
- It distinguishes innovation from invention, ideas and creativity.
- It makes the point that innovation is there to make things better.
- It is free from jargon, fashion and specifics.
I always use this definition and I find it to be both useful and uncontroversial.
Regards
Graham
If we all seem to agree that innovation is many things to many people, perhaps we ought to move on to some of Stefan’s other points, for example:
“You can plan this process just as you can plan other management and business processes/disciplines such as sales, logistics and finance. You can also train people to become better innovators especially when you understand that innovation works best with a holistic approach. It needs to be about more than just products and technologies.”
Innovation is definitely about more than products and technologies – and it is most certainly something you can plan. It needs objectives – but setting those objectives is no simple matter.
How do you set goals for innovation? Fans of Peter Drucker might use his social, product, and managerial labels and measure them by impact and importance. But how do you actually break them down into actionable objectives? LEAN seems to have an answer for incremental innovation in production processes. But how do you set objectives for social innovation? And how do you set objectives for non-incremental innovation?
@Nicholas
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
Innovation is a special type of process–It is a path function. In other words, how you innovate determines what you innovate. The way you arrange and connect the elements of innovation actually determine what you will get out the other end — from the understanding of the customer needs, to the resources, partnerships, and collaboration that create the commercial potential, all the way through to the development and launch.
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.
The term Innovation is always used as if it was an on-off thing, binary. Those working in Innovation Management recognize that it is way more subtle, which is why there is no clear/simple answer to the question: What is Innovation?
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
Liu and Noppe-Brandon in their book Imagination First offer a useful continuum that they call the ICI continuum.
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
I am a cognitive scientist. Functional MRI studies are allowing us to model innovation as a neuro-cognitive process. The model contains a neural, directed-graph frame, 21 facets, 972 concept objects. We have been able to build a simulator based on work by Dr. Lawrence Barsalou at Emory University in perceptual symbol systems. My research is being conducted at Virginia Tech. While there is a semantic turf-battle over the word innovation in business circles, we now know how it works cognitively, what the inputs, processes, and outputs are that contribute to the process, and how to simulate the generation of new ideas within a domain-general model.
Art,
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?
Interesting discussion about terms:
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?
Certainly there is a need to clarify how we all think about innovation. If I can conclude anything from this discussion, it's that there's much disagreement, a likely indicator of confusion in other populations. In recognition of this very issue, I have already embarked on writing a book to discuss this. I would love to get input from others here, and of course will highlight any contributors prominently in my writing, publication, and promotion thereof. I don't think I have all the answers; on the contrary, I'm certain that many of YOU have them.
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
I am agree on you that innovation is a process and not an outcome
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….
key topic! innovation outcome vs. innovation as a process (a never ending process, certainly).
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.
[...] What is innovation? - Is it an outcome or a process? Or both? Stefan Lindegaard asks what innovation really means. [...]
What's important is that companies are sure to have an innovative culture. A process in and of itself won't guarantee the generation of good ideas, just a development. And the outcome may not necessarily be a specific innovation. You need a very good combination of processes to fine tune an idea and a culture that invites idea generation. When ideas are generated, they can be specified and honed to really fit, and that's absolutely necessary.
I recently watched a video that critiqued Apple's "innovation" in remaking or updating applications like iTunes and said that was an incredible waste of time instead of broadening where iOS could be in people's lives. Why is Apple making their users re-learn an old product instead of trying to get iOS into different parts of people's lives? Or integrate it more effectively into people's lives? The argument was pretty compelling and demonstrates why just having ideas or just having the process aren't good on their own. Apple has a process of updating an old app every 6 months, but is it really innovative? It has to be a combination of an open idea culture along with a way of finding and implementing those ideas.
By the way, we've featured this and the video mentioned in our Friday Innovation Links Roundup post this week! http://buff.ly/10s50xS Cheers!
@WazokuHQ