On a sabath from official life, trying hard to have a personal life without all these nonsense callers trying to sell "Innovative" Credit Cards, "innovative software", Innovative " Technology product" ( a Iron Box with auto temp control), Innovative and all innovative and innovative. That brought me brooding to the point of thinking "Are all these products innovative?" “What is innovation” a grossly misused word?? Or is it ethical to call a new incremental change an innovation? Every morning I wake up to so many Innovations: "news", Data, Concepts, methodologies, mind frames, technology, Services, process to name the last. The Industry buzzword, misused, tired, trivialized, and accepted at a denizen state and level than its original self and grossly over and misused in some selfish manner to prove superiority of capabilities with an ulterior motive....
Defined as by Mr.Peter Drucker, as "A change that creates a new dimension of performance"!!! This statement speaks at a high level inclusive of the problem solving capabilities and results of the same. In way to clarify, Problem solving approach is a decision making process taken or utilized to reach to a certain state or to fill the gap between the desired state and existing state. Eric Chen and Kathryn Kai ling HO Says Innovation should simultaneously meet three basic Criteria. 1) Must engage a creative process 2) is distinctive and 3) Yield a measurable impact. And problem solving involves following steps: 1) an Input phase in which a problem is perceived and an attempt is made to understand the situation or problem; 2) a Processing phase in which alternatives are generated and evaluated and a solution is selected; 3) an Output phase which includes planning for and implementing the solution; and 4) a Review phase in which the solution is evaluated and modifications are made, if necessary.
And an interesting definition on Wikipedia brought me on with a jerk to Re-think on Innovation, which is ""All innovation begins with creative ideas . . . We define innovation as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization. In this view, creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; the first is necessary but not sufficient condition for the second".
I keep wondering for hours together, is innovation an implementation, or a process, or a service, or a methodology, or mindset, or some supernatural ability or creativity itself. But in vain, I fail to accept any of these versions. The first four are the results and after math of innovation, and the later are very closely misunderstood and accepted as Innovation itself. After musing I realize that Creativity is the fodder for innovation. Creativity is a natural capability of human mind and innovation is the result of the same. Creativity is the “creating ideas" where as Innovation is " getting those Ideas to life and existence".
I will delve with only three types of Innovation, which from my perspective are real, logical and at the base level consummates the trueness and evolution of innovation. Rest, are the application of innovation in various platforms, areas, domains, sectors, levels, fronts and perspectives of innovations seen from different angles, shades and domains. These are:
1) Incremental innovation
2) Substantial Innovation
3) Breakthrough or Radical or Disruptive Innovation
All of the above concepts have an innovation component, but their difference lies in the Degree of innovation with respect to the existing Base level, If it exists already. Which I believe does. For the innovation of electric light bulb, the base state was inexistence of a light at night giving a wider and brighter area of illumination. So for every state there should/will be a pre-Innovation state called a base state, from where the idea of difference, want, betterment, improvement or desire starts working to evolve a radically unthinkable, not imagined before, creative, high risk state called innovation, which is at risk of the receiving parties acceptance. And the base state is perceived as less rich than the present state after innovation is accomplished, accepted and being used. My contention is about the following in the whole gamut of Innovation and its evolution.
1) What is Base state? How is it defined? Is it constant? What variables and parameters affect its definition? And related questions?
2) Leapfrog: What is a differential of change? How much should that be to be defined as Incremental, Substantial or radical? What are the parameters involved in leapfrogging?
3) Does time has its game to play in this role?
4) Are other parameters like situation, Group, Industry, domain, sector, Verticals and Horizontals (as called in consulting language) have their role to play?
5) Is it a game of perspective? <>
As we move through the trajectory of innovation of anything, any domain, in any sense, any science or philosophy, the first we observe is Radical innovations (Eg: Entirely "New market Creation, Incubation of Entirely New Thought, Entirely New perspective, New product, New process, New organization model, New financial process etc," Includes 7 other innovation which I haven’t taken them worth to discuss here, which were never been thought before) , breaking the existing status quo with a wide distance of leapfrog parameters from point A to point B in the evolution (Parameters of concern include: state seperation from the already known, differentiation, causing a stir, inacceptance, shock value, mental opposition, Value of product, process, organizational change, Openness to change, Creativity etc). Radical innovation, concerned with exploration of new state, is fundamentally different from incremental innovation that is concerned with exploitation of existing state. Radical innovation promises a state with unprecedented performance, revolutionizing the existing status quo, to an extent of questioning the very existence. It creates such a dramatic change in processes, thought culture, products, or services and all that related to this innovation which results in that they transform existing markets or industries or mindsets etc, or create new ones. Radical innovation is revolutionary in nature, high risks, high stakes with high level of uncertainty, many of the endeavors have risk, high TCO and initial rejection by the consumers might be a common place and they sure are with longer duration of acceptance when compared to Substantial and incremental Innovations. In the next step in evolution of Innovation we see the development being slowed down. The reason being the innovation group/party tends to have set an accepted background/state to develop from, thereby limiting our outlook for beyond the base state already defined. At this point the environment tends to be conducive for considerably larger leapfrog with considerably less wider gaps between point A and point B with respect to Disruptive Innovation (please refer to multifarious parameters above I talk when I write leapfrog) , but is not radical or disruptive in nature. The major cause is due to limitation of perspective and field/space of application of innovativeness, thereby constraining the future domain of application of creativity. Base knowledge of existing state is a major parameter to limit the innovation. During this period, some common observations are Questioning of the state takes place, inacceptance, production method is innovated, utility is accepted, new entrants reinvent another way to serve the base motive, product is reshaped, redesigned, manufacturing processes are reengineered etc. The issue of concern is the lack of questioning at the motive, strategy, reason for existence, gist, Value or the CORE Level than of the accepted understanding of status quo state in the present defined domain. My sincere apologies for business school graduates; here value is marginal value when compared to previous state. Please make a note of the same. Here we interact with the second stage in evolution of innovation called Substantial Innovation, which takes place with rapid development when compared to radical innovation in the length of time differential between the status quo and Pre-"present" innovation state. The key point to note at this point is the exploratory nature of radical innovation, whereas substantial and incremental innovation is defined in development on existing state. After which, the evolution would reach the second last step- the state of Incremental Innovation where smaller leaps of changes are incorporated in the present state, the time duration is very low in every of this transition. There can be many incremental changes possible in the state. And it involves varied perspectives of changes to be made in the state for pleasing/serving smaller units of motives/Interest/likings/situations/etc. Ultimately at the end we end with another status Quo. From a under developed status quo we end up in a developed status quo, while all mom pop, tiny miniscule changes takes place, at an higher level the potential to innovate reduces and becomes mature. That is when we are into a domain of Unknown future and after a long traverse through the known (incremental and substantial innovation steps) world the potential of innovation reduces and it becomes rigorous and end up in monotony /robotic way. The freedom of change in an organizational setup reduces over the period of time as the environment is accustomed to the new Innovation and many middle managers fear to tread out of their bastion of secured complacency and jump into innovation gamefield full of accidents, risks and uncertainties. For more on this, Please read Mckinsey's Recent article on "How middle managers are bottlenecks for innovation". My point here is when things are easily predictable then the innovativeness takes the shape of problem solving. Problem solving as defined by thought leaders is as follows:
Problem solving: is a process in which we perceive and resolve a gap between a present situation and a desired goal, with the path to the goal blocked by known or unknown obstacles. In general, the situation is one not previously encountered, or where at least a specific solution from past experiences is not known.
Now with these two definitions seting the pace, lets get into my space.
The process of change normally emerges from a series of strategic choices. Breakthrough, disruptive or radical innovation involves launching an entirely novel product or service rather than providing improved products & services along the same lines as currently. The uncertainty of breakthrough innovations means that seldom do companies achieve their breakthrough goals this way, but those times that breakthrough innovation does work, the rewards can be tremendous. It involves larger leaps of questioning, a core level of inspection perhaps demanding a new way of seeing the whole problem, probably taking a much larger risk than many people involved are happy about. There may be considerable opposition to the proposal and questions about the ethics, practicality or cost of the change may be raised. People may question if this is, or is not, an advancement of a state. Radical innovation involves breakthrough change in basic methods, created by those working outside mainstream industry and outside existing paradigms or a born outside the box thinker. Sometimes it is very hard to draw a line between both of incremental and substantial innovation. Otherwise, it’s good to be happy with Status quo, whatever that might be. Let it go on as it was and is, but its human nature to go different, to do different, and to get the best, more so to experiment and challenge. But its the rules, regulations, complacency, acceptance of present, non visionary attitude which limit the creative aspect to think different and innovate. Accepting and assimilation of the status quo by education, learning, life, surroundings inputs, and every thing set before you entered the said world is a strong opponent for the process of innovation. A long drawn traditional schooling of learning, information, acceptance, questioning, visualizing, nonchalance and accepting the present world and its processes, workings, situations, challenges, business solutions etc hampers the creativity, instead it paves a path for rigor, organization, setting, robotism, monotony, process orientation and most importantly subject specific jargons to evangelize a simple concept and make it look larger than life or to earn business gains. Rest, at the core it is all a rigorous work and definition of human thought by inputs from the surroundings to accept the status quo which hampers the instigation of innovation. Why is a kid known to be more creative than a grown ups, for a simple reason that he has less knowledge accepted and assimilated, less scared of outcomes, no trepidations, readiness to explore the environment, to learn the environment to know the unknown. The reason being that employees /humans/ we/ people/innovation hub members/”call them what ever” are so much bombarded with information which is rigorous and a part of it is made to be accustomed and specialize in the same to get accustomed to the set mindset acceptable to the society.
Comparing problem solving with Innovation, Both of them have a desired state, in innovation it can be undefined but in problem solving it has to be defined. Problem solving has a gap bridging approach where a desire state is defined and ways to achieve the desired state from the present state is to be found. Both of these have a transition phase of immense questioning, inspection, risks and all other parameters involved in defining innovation.
As we observed in Radical Innovation, we need a radically different vision, an exploratory approach, and readiness to question the existing state and shake the basis of present state of acceptance. The -------- brothers invented aeroplane model, but for a Hindu who believes in mythology will not accept this as innovation? Co s he is aware of Garuda Vahana!!! He is aware of how Seeta was flown to Ceylon. A true innovation. Is it for the Hindu with his information??? or a discovery? Now the question of level of information arises. The present state of reference is a major factor influencing the definition of Innovation, for that matter any concept. Now lets end and analyze the influence of 1) Time 2) Person 3) Size of leapfrogging 4) commitment to innovation/problem solving processes 5) large degree of predictability in the innovation process parameters and outcomes 6) The use of PDCA Cycle are parameters to be called an endeavor/ result as innovation (Radical, Substantial or Incremental), Creativity, Fallacy, Problem solving.
Will continue in my next blog… Hope you can relate to it.
