If you were to put a few talented musicians or skilled screenwriters into a room and mandated them to write a Grammy-winning song or Oscar-winning blockbuster, could they do it?
There is no telling. They could try. But, they wouldn’t know until they went to market, and the song or movie caught on with audiences. The best they could do is the best they can do. You can’t Grammy-ize a song or Oscarize a movie.
So why do we put business people in rooms and command them to drum up innovations?
There is no such thing as “being innovative.” Innovation is a result – not a process. A badge for successful ideas. As elusive as writing a hit song or blockbuster movie.
An innovation is an idea put into action that creates change. You can try to create ground-breaking ideas intended for this purpose, but until launched and in use, you won’t know if it is an innovation.
It is an inexact art, not a science.
If innovation were a science, we would have already studied innovations that have taken place, extrapolated the learnings, and created a replicable process with the reliable and expected outcome of an innovation.
We’d be using the innovation recipe whenever we needed it… The same way we combine the elements for making aspirin.
Quite opposite, instead, we’re struggling with the headaches of trying to be innovative.
What’s the Problem? What’s the Solution?
One of the things that art and science have in common, is that when you get set to create – with a specific purpose in mind – you have greater success when you use the right tools, are in the right frame of mind, with the right resources, and use the right process. The rest is craftsmanship, hard work, dedication, and passion.
On the list of objectives of most US corporations is a statement about being innovative or driving innovation.
Telling people to “innovate” is the problem. It frames the wrong issue. The mission of the team isn’t to “innovate,” it is to:
“Create remarkable ideas that have the potential to induce improvement and change.”
Perhaps your FY’09 goals are worth re-wording. Don’t waste your energy, realize “being innovative” is code for “Do the best work possible to create remarkable ideas we hope people will find so great they become designated as innovative.”
Related posts:
What is your take on this? I think the idea behind it is to turn “innovation” into a repeatable process.
http://www.powerpatterns.com/five-competencies.html
Interesting how the business world picks up on a buzz word and uses it as a panacea to all ills. “Innovation” sits alongside “engagement” this year.
Without inspiration and creative thought, there is no innovation. I agree that one cannot dictate innovation. What leaders can do is to create cultures where new thoughts, ideas, and inspirations are embraced and discussed. Whatever ensues is innovation. Sometimes it takes off, and sometimes it won’t. But without taking calculated risks, change cannot occur.
Thought-provoking post, Paul!
Paul:
I definitely agree with your recommendation to re-express goals and mandates into simple clear English. I recently went through such an exercise with my team and found it quite powerful.
But I simply do not accept your definition of “innovative”. I’ve seen your definition before. You’re definitely in good company. But I don’t think it makes sense to include the business results as part of the definition of innovation. Too many things can get in the way of business results. A wonder drug can be rejected by he FDA for being a bit too risky. A great new technology can find it difficult to reach the market because larger rivals control the distribution channels. The economy can tank and people can suddenly not afford your new widget.
To me, an innovation is something new that, in some way turns some established principle on its head. Either by thinking about what people need/want in a very new way. Or, on the technical side, by developing a solution that breaks established rules.
Still, I agree with you that telling people to go be innovative is kind of silly.
BTW, sometimes we use the word “art” to describe something that really is rule governed (i.e. science) but for which we have not identified the rules or which has so many rules for so many contexts that we can’t keep track. I suspect innovation is much more of a science than we know now. With further advances in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, sociology, etc. I believe we will come to see more of the science behind innovation.
I get your point but find your response as cliché as the shallow way we throw around terms like innovation and creativity.
To create an innovation takes new ideas (according to your definition).
What does it take to create new ideas? — New insights….
What does it take to fuel the thinking to create new insights that lead to new ideas?
How do we have to think to create new insights and ideas?
Creatively? Innovatively? You are correct that these are the cliché responses.
Yet if we consider the work on cognitive styles, the distinction between innovative thinking and adaptive thinking styles is totally correct and useful. (www.kaicentre.com)
As such, “being innovative” describes a behaviour that is distinct from being “adaptive”.
On this point I totally agree: Innovation is a result – not a process.
I wish we called it “product development processes” or “problem solving processes” …. not innovation processes. I interviewed an executive recently who said they were working on “four innovations at the present time.”
In fact, they were working on new four new projects. I doubt any will end up being an innovation.
Dear Paul:
I completely agree that the word “innovation” is overrated. The bad news is it means different things to all people, some see it as a process and others as the result of a new idea that changes how society behaves.
For any product or service to be labeled innovative it first has to be perceived as such by society.
Elaine hit it right on target with: Without inspiration and creative thought, there is no innovation.
I would find it hard to imagine that “innovative” companies such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Nintendo
ask themselves “How can we be more innovative?”.
Instead they ask themselves “How can we make great things that have an impact in the world?”
Great post!
Adrienne,
If “Innovate Like Edison” were written for musicians, it would be called “Write Like Stevie Wonder” (22 Grammy Awards as a Male Solo Artist), or “Win Like Walt” (Walt Disney won 22 Oscars, more than any individual in history).
These are guide to creating remarkable ideas, songs, or movies.
The secret that leads to developing an innovation is having the right environment, using the right people, and using the right process. (What is “right” varies based on you, your team, and circumstances – it is not a formula either).
Thank you for your comment and pointing out the book!
Elaine,
You nailed it… It is about creating “cultures where new thoughts, ideas, and inspirations are embraced and discussed.” And then DOING SOMETHING with those ideas. Seth Godin talks about this in “Free Prize Inside.”
He writes:
“The difference between success and failure most definitely is not about any shortage of ideas that are good enough. Instead, it’s about overcoming that status quo and inertia and working within your organization to make things happen.”
As always – thank you for your comments!
Adam,
Thank you for the conversation…
I’m not necessarily using business results as the measure of what is innovative.
And, I totally get your point about great things (such as the wonder drug or better widget) not making it to the spotlight due to external factors.
However, if the drug was really a wonder, or the new widget truly better, they would make their way to the need. Until then, they are still just great ideas.
There are a millions of great ideas right now sitting in companies all over the world that COULD be innovations if they made it through the “FDA Approval” within an organization.
If something is holding the FDA back, to me that says that there is something missing from the idea behind the drug.
Similar to a “great idea” that the Product and Marketing teams team like, but that Operations says will be too hard to execute by front-line employees. As great an idea this is – until it is launched it doesn’t exist.
(I know that approval of drugs is a complicated process and I’m oversimplifying it for my example… but hopefully you get the point.)
Finally, I too am excited about learning how the mind works, how collaboration is a key to great ideas more than individual insights, etc.
In fact, my work with Idea Sandbox involves combining what we know about the science of the mind to the creative problem solving process.
Ed,
Thank you for adding your thoughts.
I understand what you’re saying, but my first goal is to help people realize innovation is not the process, but a result.
Next step is to talk about – as you suggested below call each process by name: for product, or strategy, or customer service, or brand, etc.
Not many companies want to admit they have a problem. Nowadays, the way many business leaders state “My company has a problem” is with the sentence, “We need to be more innovative.”
The thread I see running here is, how we can use science to reduce the randomness of the problem solving process (whether the problem is with a product, strategy, brand, etc…).
Always great to hear from you Ed. I hope all is well at The Idea Factory!
Innovation requires time and space and safety. That’s why writers go off to serene places for a few months. It also requires “idea” people (I am one) and the organized ones who can do all the follow-through. It takes a team to innovate, and unfortunately it is hard to bring together the right people with the right talents and attitudes. My entire life, I have felt like a great idea person, but rarely connect with the people who bring ideas to fruition. I’m envious of people who can do both. A frustrated educator, I do my best to innovate with the guidance of my virtual friends, but in real life I am on my own — very few are up for the commitment and risk.
A few years ago I was hired to write a book on how business leaders came up with insights that ultimately became marketplace successes. It was like reverse-engineering the innovation process. I completed several dozen interviews with execs (mostly marketing VPs and senior management), and have a number of very interesting vignettes and anecdotes about how innovation happens.
The lessons were many — too many for a short post here — but there were some common threads — mostly that the “innovators” relied heavily on market research to stimulate their thinking. They were also mostly folks who were not afraid to be “different” in many contexts. They were anything but conformists.
All that said, I agree that innovation isn’t the goal, it’s the process. Nice, thought-provoking post. Thanks.
Everyone is naturally innovative. Over time, most people lose the spark to innovate (create, play, etc.) because it’s simply not valued once you get to a certain age in your schooling. At that point, it’s about achievement. By the time you enter the job market, you’re well-educated on best practices and “the way it’s done around here”.
So when someone suddenly announces, “We need to innovate”, there’s a lot of fear. Most people haven’t been keeping their innovative muscles well-exercised. People don’t want to say something that reduces their status in the group (by looking stupid). And people have been frustrated by suggesting innovations only to have their ideas ignored or misinterpreted.
In business, you’re not rewarded for innovating. You’re rewarded for improving the bottom line. Most businesses are satisfied by incremental evolutions and shy away from business revolutions. And that’s where the leaps in business are to be found.
Innovation isn’t a spigot you turn on and off as it suits you. Just like any skill, it need regular practice. And there are lots of (scientific) methods for applying innovation.
Paul, I’m going to put my head on the block and disagree. You wrote:
“If innovation were a science, we would have …created a replicable process with the reliable and expected outcome of an innovation.”
This process exists, and it is in use every day when groups of people produce innovative ideas using a combination of tight process and a carefully shaped environment. What’s more, they produce innovation again and again, on schedule, on time, and in budget. I could take you down the road and show you the process in action any time you like in any city in the world.
Those places are theaters and the process is called rehearsal.
Sure, not every production is a Grammy-level success – but they are more innovative than most business attempts.
Theatrical tools can be a powerful source of innovation in business. Companies seem to avoid it – perhaps because it seems “artistic” and “soft”. This is untrue. Theaters are real-world businesses too, and if the process didn’t work, they would drop it.
All the best,
Adam
WorkPlayExperience blog.
Theatrical tools in business.
Adam…
From what I’m readin’ – you’re telling me in-fact it is NOT a science… But an art… The art of the stage.
That’s pretty cool. I’m looking forward to checking out your blog!
Paul