True Innovation?

Interesting that Strategos see the value of a systematic innovation process. this is an excerpt from a just-issued pdf, For innovation that works, dispel obsolete assumptions, and ask new questions.

Excerpt:

A systematic innovation process sounds like an oxymoron. After all, if it’s systematic, how can it possibly spark true innovation? Yet this is another obsolete belief. A recent survey of ours found that firms with an established innovation process in place out-innovate others in their industry. One participant wrote: “An innovation process is critical to bringing structure to a fundamentally unstructured activity…Without a process to bring order to the chaos this money is wasted.” The key is not to let the process become bureaucratic while still allowing both enough exploration at the  front end as well as crisp decision-making at the back end.

I agree with that but it kind of begs the question: What exactly is "true innovation"? At Strategyn, we say that Innovation is a process for devising a concept that meets unmet customer needs and commercial growth objectives.Thats true innovation.....

Comments

[debbie chaplo]

My daughter was asked a question at school....Why is it difficult to identify a truly new innovation that is marketable? please help

[Chris]

Hi Ed
Thanks for your comment and question.

I would characterise ODI as a process add-on that provides new units of analysis or opportunity to do the majority of the innovation job more effectively.

Its a front-end add-on to pre-development innovation activities (hence our definition above). It provides alternative more robust, less ambiguous units of analysis / opportunity or inputs for innovation strategy formulation, market sizing / segmentation, concept generation, pipeline review, positioning etc etc. - all downstream activities.

Gary Hamel says in Management Innovation that companies perenially struggle to balance creativity with discipline. We argue that having the right units of analysis for creativity is key to achieving this balance. Existing creative activities need not be replaced - just focused on known opportunties. ODI permits this shift from invention / idea-first to needs-first -with the needs stated very explicitly and independent of current technologies / solutions.

Some more on pur views on the flaws of idea-first thinking can be found here: http://www.strategyn.co.uk/Newsletter/The%20flaws%20of%20idea-first%20thinking.asp

Very happy to connect and explain more..

best rgds

Chris

[Edward Savage]

Hi Chris,

Interesting flyer. Would you consider innovation a separate process to be managed?

I ask because I have found resistance to "Innovation", seen as a BIG change, but far less resistance to "tools to help you do your job better" seen as a little change.

This document challenges a few of the preconceptions around what innovation is, and that is great. It does leave the impression that to become an innovation organisation it requires a discontinuous event (an architecture!) that has to be brought in as opposed to everyday changes in behaviour.

How would you characterise the implementation of the ODI process? Does it build on current practices or replace them?

Thanks for the post. Made me think!

Ed