What is Innovation?
CPH127 had a recent post about defining innovation that I found very interesting (Click here to go to the post). I will agree with their idea that innovation is not easy to define and depending on your background and your area of work, innovation will take on different meanings.
My two cents on the definition of innovation is derived mainly from my Executive Strategy class during my Mercer MBA years. The definition that Dr. Johnson set forth that I lean toward is this: Innovation is an process, service, or product advancement that changes the way business is conducted.
What I like about this definition is that it assumes innovation is a label of hindsight. You don't label something as innovative until the impact is seen, and therefore sitting down and innovating is a ridiculous, assumptive idea.
For a banal example, take the Ipod. It came on the scene alongside lots of mp3 players. It's innovation did not occur with a spiffy new little interface circle that you twirl around, it happened when they connected the mp3 devise to a music management system with Itunes and created strategic business alliances with the recording industry to sell you music in a convenient way. This was innovation, it changed the way we live with our music. It was not the success of the Jonathan Ive, though he did an amazing job on the piece and should be commended for that.
Back to the discussion on CPH127, I will have to disagree with Harry Max of Dreamworks, I do think that dreaming, designing, and planning are all parts of the path to innovation. While they are not exclusive contributors, they do play their part. I will also have to say that I don't think there is a process by which to innovate and there never will be; that is the point to innovation. If you can turn innovation into a commodity then it isn't innovation anymore. It can be packaged and purchased and mass produced in China. Innovation changes the rules of the game in an unforeseen way, therefore if you define innovation more specifically than in terms of change, you are stifling it and limiting yourself to a narrow formulaic path.
My two cents on the definition of innovation is derived mainly from my Executive Strategy class during my Mercer MBA years. The definition that Dr. Johnson set forth that I lean toward is this: Innovation is an process, service, or product advancement that changes the way business is conducted.
What I like about this definition is that it assumes innovation is a label of hindsight. You don't label something as innovative until the impact is seen, and therefore sitting down and innovating is a ridiculous, assumptive idea.
For a banal example, take the Ipod. It came on the scene alongside lots of mp3 players. It's innovation did not occur with a spiffy new little interface circle that you twirl around, it happened when they connected the mp3 devise to a music management system with Itunes and created strategic business alliances with the recording industry to sell you music in a convenient way. This was innovation, it changed the way we live with our music. It was not the success of the Jonathan Ive, though he did an amazing job on the piece and should be commended for that.
Back to the discussion on CPH127, I will have to disagree with Harry Max of Dreamworks, I do think that dreaming, designing, and planning are all parts of the path to innovation. While they are not exclusive contributors, they do play their part. I will also have to say that I don't think there is a process by which to innovate and there never will be; that is the point to innovation. If you can turn innovation into a commodity then it isn't innovation anymore. It can be packaged and purchased and mass produced in China. Innovation changes the rules of the game in an unforeseen way, therefore if you define innovation more specifically than in terms of change, you are stifling it and limiting yourself to a narrow formulaic path.
posted by Michael Nelson at 11:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home