A week ago I started teaching an SIT course in the Bar-Ilan University. After an interesting discussion on the value of innovation, one of the students asked the most basic academic question: “what is your definition of innovation?”
Well … What is my definition of innovation? I suddenly realized that in 10 years of teaching innovation & facilitating innovation processes I have never thought of a definition for the darn thing …
The Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines innovation as the introduction of something new or a new idea, method, or device. I believe you’ll agree with me that at least for our purposes (we innovation-enthusiasts) this is a tad too wide. For one, it completely ignores the value of that “new idea, method, or device.”
The MONASH University Marketing Dictionary, on the other hand, defines innovation as the introduction of a product which is new to both the company and its customers; a new-to-the-world product. This may be a bit too narrow. It addresses only product innovation and ignores other types of innovation like process innovation, organizational innovation etc. Furthermore, it addresses only innovations in the products itself – disregarding the production process, type and occasion of use etc.
I could try to generate an awkward, list-like definition of innovation that would check all the necessary boxes – but this is not what I am looking for. I am looking for something that would be a little more meaningful, not to say inspiring…
As I was contemplating this, a strange thought started formulating in my mind. Innovation is invariably about bending, if not breaking, the rules. It is about change – not repetition; about daring – not submission. So maybe, it’s also about exceptions and not definitions.
Harry Potter, the exceptional wizard who captured the imagination of millions around the world, is credited for “a certain disregard for rules”. Those of you who know him will probably agree that it is the combination of audacity, persistence and that certain disregard for rules that allows Harry to excel in the real world far more than in the academic world, for example.
So maybe this is as close as we can get to the essence of innovation – a cocktail of courage, diligence and flexible attitude towards rules and assumptions. This mix is necessary not only in the ideation phase, but also throughout the long and winding road from a valuable idea to a valued product, process, or service. Those who are familiar with the tortuous nature of that road will surely value the help of a wizard…
So what are we left with? What is the definition of innovation? Do we really need such a definition? Or maybe when we try to define innovation we actually confine it?
It seems that there are many aspects of innovation that are easy enough to define. But there is also something else; something elusive and mysterious; something that lives just outside of our rules and definitions. Maybe the words of Freddy Mercury say it best, and indeed “it’s a kind of magic.”
Innovation is a state of mind and given the right setup, will automagically happen.
While this does not align with your theory by which using your tools and methodologies will lead to innovation, I’d stress, it’ll lead to extensions, complementation and additional angles not thought of in an ordinary manner.
True innovation like the light bulb, microwave and alike happened just like indicated: the right setup, state of mind and magically or some would argue accidently…
Amit, reading your last line made me smile and that’s I think can also be part of the definition of innovation - it should somehow somewhere in the process create a smile.
When you talk about magic, I think attributes and values. Magic is part of the innovation process(attribute), or magic is the thing that comes out of the innovation process? Maybe both?
I think it is part of what makes the discussion about the definition complex, is it the process of creating something new, or is it the definition of an innovative result?
going back to the dictionaries, is it the introduction of something? the process before the introduction? or the newness of the something itself
Hi Razi,
First - thanks for reading and for taking the time to respond.
As I was reading you comment about the right set up, or state of mind, I thought of the lesson that followed the one I mentioned in my post. In that lesson we talked about the difficulties involved with innovation and the methodologies that have been developed to assist/promote/enhance this process.
We talked about methodologies like Brain Storming & The 6 Thinking Hats that are designed primarily to mitigate social and psychological barriers to innovation (relevant to the “right setup” or “state of mind”) and methodologies like Random Stimulus that are designed to overcome cognitive barriers.
One of the things I like most about SIT is the fact that it addresses both the cognitive and the social/psychological barriers to innovation. Moreover, the fact that both these different dimensions are addressed is synergistic. Simply put, the fact that there is a systematic approach to innovation that actually works helps many participants overcome their inhibitions.
And when that happens you usually get much more than extensions, complementation or additional angles - you get magic…
I would say that the innovation “alla SIT” process itself could be characterized by the concept of “disciplined imagination” (paraphrasing my cousin Gabriel Szulanski’s paper called that way)
Ideally it should be fun, and with a feeling of “flow” (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi), but as Amnon has (aproximately) said while interviewed by Alexander Haig, “if you like to have fun, guaranteed, you should look elsewhere”
Regarding the completion of the definition, the outcome, as understood by prestigious business and design graduate schools, should be related with bringing it into reality. It can be any kind of deliberable value (products, services, experiences, processes, business models, advertisements, etc, etc), but real, not just into the minds of the innovating team/person.
Of course such a complex concept as innovation could be defined in hundreds of ways, it will be the composite knowledge that will enlighten our understanding.
Cheers!
Fabian
Hi Tamar, hi Fabian,
Thanks for you comments!
You both addressed the outcome of innovation - the actual change introduced to the real world - as a major part of the definition of innovation.
This is, off course, very true for SIT people. We are “raised” to understand that it is ideas in the real WORLD, rather than in a WORD document, that we are after.
There are central elements in our methodology that are aimed to facilitate exactly that (e.g. the Closed World principle & the Limit rather than Dilute approach), and it is also considered a major part of our value proposition and responsibility.
However, I cannot overlook the fact that many wonderful innovations de jure never become innovations de facto due to various reasons that have nothing to do with the ‘quality’ of the idea. Should we denounce them for a crime they did not commit?
One way to define innovation could be “Profitably implementation of strategicall creativity”
Lars