Sorry to be so late to reply to your comment, which i read with much interest. I am traveling these past few weeks, which has made me fall back on mails and posts, not to mention embarassingly enlarging my carbon footprint. But that is another subject.

I agree with you 100% - Innovation and Sustainability do not have to conflict. On the contrary, and as you mention in your comment, Sustainability is a strong driver for Innovation. As I mention in my post, Innovation is nearly a logical prerequisite for Sustainability as well.
My claim is that innovation, AS IT IS OFTEN (MIS)CONSTRUED, is at odds with sustainability. Why so? Because the “Blue Sky”/Brainstorming versions of innovation, that are all too prevalent, tend to lead their users to ideas that are anti-sustainable. How? Because idea generators, when they are left to ideate without constraints, tend to gravitate to addition-ideas, meaning more features, additional modules, higher power etc.
“Constraints” is the key term here. If people see as their main principle in generating ideas (as in BS) the freedom from constraints (”anything goes”), then any constraints imposed on them are seen as anti-creativity and therefore anti-innovation.
Say a team is charged with inventing a new line of medical devices, and they are using traditional approaches to ideation, then their “enemies” are the FDA, the limitations of their current technologies, budget cuts, and they will be trying to generate ideas IN SPITE of these constraints. Now along comes Sustainability, and now they have yet another constraint to deal with.
Obviously, we believe that the Sustainability constraints are good news, rather than a hindrance. Why? First, because our approach to creativity and innovation embraces constraints, and actually depends on them. Second, because Sustainability gives this medical device company a whole new area to excel in, and to differentiate itself from competitors. And third, but not least, a great chance to do something for the benefit of everyone and their future.
You mention that the real conflict is between Sustainability and consumerism. I titally agree. In fact, we have started to work with a simple model that describes four types fo relationships between S and I as related to new product development. One of the quadrants, which we call high-innovation low-sustainability is exactly that - rampant consumerism (symbolized in our mdoel by the pig). On the other hand, the high-S high-I quadrant (the dolphin) represents the kind of innovation we (and i undertand that you as well) are striving for and appreciate.
thanks
Amnon

I think your assumption that innovation always requires ‘more’ and is therefore in conflict with sustainability a false one; the conflict is more between sustainability and traditional patterns of ‘consumption’ (consumerism and related business model where more and bigger is better) rather than innovation, which is only a means to an end, whatever end we desire and define.

If we add ‘Re-think’ to the beginning of the 3 R’s sustainability mantra (Reduce, Reuse & Recycle) then maybe we have a more positive context within which to innovate sustainably? Give that many costs for existing product’s are “external” to the price paid i.e. not factored into the cost of production and sale price, then going even further and starting with ‘Re-costing’ existing product’s may help to create the oft missing burning platform necessary to spur sustainable innovation.

Both innovation and sustainability suffer from relative ‘newness’ compared to other disciplines and activities and therefore lack clarity and I think this is the key challenge for many individuals and firm’s. I have always believed that “less is more” applies to innovation so I guess sustainability just confirms me in that belief!

Brendan at “How To Farm Lightning: sustainable innovation”

cool Task Unification (or Attribute Dependency?).
sustainability innovation together/theory
(:
Amnon

Some not too organized immediate thoughts:
1) i think one of the points of sustainability is that there isnt a difference between the two types of sustainability. the metaphor is a small boat floating on a big boat that is sinking.
2) i am not sure that with “longevity type” sustainability there is the same inherent conflict as with the green one. maybe yes- inertia in the same direction versus the need to change course, although, continuing with the ship metaphor, a big ship that wants to stay on course knows that it needs adjustments to go around rocks and icebergs, but will find it difficult to make dramatic changes to its direction.
3) when people ask me questions of the “how will SIT help organizations do X?” type, what comes to mind is usually that SIT helps people think and act differently, and i have yet to see the area or aspect of an organization’s life (or a person’s) that cannot benefit from that.
Amnon

Dilemas are a nice challenge to overcome. Aparently inversely proportional entities, could co-exist synergically, as Innovation and “being green”. New and not so new methodologies help us to overcome them: TRIZ (and its sister SIT) excel in overcoming trade-off and dilematic situations similar to the greener & innovation issue you’ve described.

My question is, when you are focused on achieving sustainability not in the environmentally responsible sense, but in the “corporate longevity” sense, how would SIT help organizations being longeve and innovative at the same time?

Saludos,

Fabian.