{"id":479,"date":"2012-02-28T22:50:47","date_gmt":"2012-02-29T03:50:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/steinvox.com\/?p=479"},"modified":"2012-08-11T12:16:54","modified_gmt":"2012-08-11T17:16:54","slug":"innovation-continuumclarity-around-a-powerful-valuable-but-overused-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/innovation-continuumclarity-around-a-powerful-valuable-but-overused-word\/","title":{"rendered":"Innovation Continuum – Clarity Around A Powerful, Valuable, But Overused, Word"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The Word of the Decade is,\u2026 Innovation or Innovation Continuum<\/em>. It\u2019s popularity is demonstrated by 407,000,000 internet results reported by Google in 0.13 seconds. Let\u2019s ponder what innovation really is by definition and begin to classify a continuum of innovation. Nothing too radical, just something to consider in terms of language hyperbole.<\/p>\n

Overuse – Innovation Continuum<\/h3>\n

Clearly, the word is the sword of language <\/em>today. You find it used to embellish the relevant importance of concepts<\/em>, activities<\/em>,\u00a0 facts<\/em>, fiction<\/em>,\u00a0 results <\/em>and points of view<\/em>. It can be easily found in blog posts, product descriptions, websites, r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, Google+ profiles, corporate mission statements, government official\u2019s speeches, the newspaper and so on. There are even several local, national, and global innovation awards for outstanding innovation \u2013 usually for things<\/em> or products<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Of course, the word innovation has also been misused to describe many things that may not be innovation at all.<\/p>\n

Definition<\/h3>\n

Consider the following definition found on dictionary.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201csomething new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum<\/em>.\u201d Or my example: That new product is the best innovation <\/em>of the year.<\/li>\n
  2. \u201cthe act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.\u201d My example:
    \nHe drew upon innovation <\/em>in his approach to advance his research.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Wikipedia<\/a> defines innovation: \u201cInnovation<\/a><\/strong> is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    I like the Wikipedia definition, for three reasons.\u00a0 First, it differentiates innovation from invention. Second, it points out that innovation is not limited to just \u201cproducts\u201d or things, but can be a better process, service, technology or idea \u2013 all somewhat less tangible, and perhaps less likely to be recognized as \u201cinnovation.\u201d And third, it clarifies that innovation must have value<\/em> in terms of acceptance by markets, governments, and\/or society. An innovation is not innovation if it is for the sake of, or is false, innovation.<\/p>\n

    Continuum<\/h3>\n

    It may be time to step back, and ensure we look at innovation for what it really is. So many authors have defined this \u2013 but we lose track in day to day colloquial use of the word. I propose the following continuum:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Idea \u2013 theory, research, science<\/em><\/li>\n
    2. Invention \u2013 design, engineer, prototype<\/em><\/li>\n
    3. Innovation \u2013 commercialization, delivery, acceptance<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      My reasoning is that innovation as a context can apply across all steps in the continuum, And, for the thing <\/em>going through the process continuum, it doesn\u2019t become an innovation until it is commercialized, delivered and accepted to be fit for the purpose it was designed.<\/p>\n

      \"InnovationContinuum\"<\/a>One can easily see that this is a circular continuum.\u00a0 Once an innovation is accepted by users, experience builds and the opportunity to suggest new ideas for improvement start the cycle all over again.\u00a0 Many times, the cycle is started by adding creative new elements to the current invention \u2013 sometimes called continuous innovation<\/em>.\u00a0 Other times, our beliefs are challenged and heretofore impossibilities become possible and that drives drives a radical innovation<\/em>.\u00a0 Still other times, experience causes us to throw out the current foundational beliefs, and the current generation of creativity and invention by the introduction of a disruptive new idea as a result of scientific breakthroughs, which in turn, begat new creativity and disruptive innovation.<\/p>\n

      Something to Ponder<\/h3>\n

      If innovation is all that Wikipedia, the dictionary and my suggestions here have shared, why, as a word, is it used to describe just about everything? That is, just about anything, based on subjective suggestion that something it describes has been accepted by markets, governments and or society? Can so many things really be innovation? or are we better off reserving the use of that word for things that really deliver on the three tests:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Is it a better or more efficient product, process, service, technology or idea?<\/li>\n
      2. Does it really provide value and benefit to markets, society and\/or government?<\/li>\n
      3. Is it more than an invention, in terms of its commercial value?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Innovation or Invention?<\/h3>\n

        Consider this thought: MP3 players existed well before the iPod and iTunes were successfully accepted by the market.<\/p>\n

        \"ListenUpPlayerByAudioHighway\"<\/a>Could one say, then, that MP3 players, were a great invention<\/em>, but it was the iPod that was the innovation<\/em>? Hard to say. According to Wikipedia, the Listen Up player from Audio Highway (pictured at the left) won an \u201cInnovations Award” at the Consumer Electronics Show in January of 1997.<\/p>\n

        Many companies, not just Apple, have been openly accused, if not indicted, for \u201cdemocratizing\u201d a pre-existing invention\/innovation. Microsoft, Oracle, and so on fall in this category, as well as many others.<\/p>\n

        I don\u2019t know the answer to the MP3 player vs. iPod question, I just ask you to consider it. Clearly, the lines are fuzzy, if not downright blurry and open to interpretation.<\/p>\n

        Going Forward<\/h3>\n

        Let\u2019s use this great and powerful word, but lets try to use it when it really adds meaning to what we are saying. I don\u2019t think, for example, that my two dogs\u00a0are an innovation, nor do they ever do an act of innovation. That\u2019s an extreme case, but not every new product is an innovation. In fact, most products that are not coming from a marketplace leader, are only delivering competitive parity by adding features that others already have.<\/p>\n

        Ironically, Google also reports that the word OMG<\/em>, the hyperbolic acronym for \u201coh my gosh!<\/em>\u201d is found 407,000,000 times. That\u2019s precisely the same result that Google reports for use on the internet, as innovation<\/em>! Can it be that the two have reached that same level of common, ordinary conversational use? I really don\u2019t think so. An innovation is something uncommon special, something really great.<\/p>\n

        Can we all just use the word a little less?\u00a0So when we do, it has more meaning? Let’s try to use\u00a0the word “innovation” when we really have something remarkable to classify as innovation<\/em>, and use ordinary words to describe the common<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        Extra Credit<\/h3>\n

        What conclusions can you draw from the following data. Do the numbers make sense? These numbers reflect Google\u2019s report for results <\/em>on 28 February 2012. The number to the right of the keyword is what Google reports for the number of times the word occurs on the internet. I suggest that this is an indirect measure of the word\u2019s relative use.<\/p>\n

        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Idea<\/td>\n1,980,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Theory<\/td>\n640,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Research<\/td>\n2,580,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Science<\/td>\n2,310,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Invention<\/td>\n132,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Design<\/td>\n5,670,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Engineer<\/td>\n85,500,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Prototype<\/td>\n216,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Innovation<\/td>\n407,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Commercialization<\/td>\n14,900,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Delivery<\/td>\n2,450,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Acceptance<\/td>\n348,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n

        Diagrams credit: me and my Powerpoint skills.
        \nPicture Credit: Kris Beldin, now in the public domain on Wikimedia Commons.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        <\/a>The Word of the Decade is,\u2026 Innovation or Innovation Continuum. It\u2019s popularity is demonstrated by 407,000,000 internet results reported by Google in 0.13 seconds. Let\u2019s ponder what innovation really is by definition and begin to classify a continuum of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":481,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[59,104,85,50,10,8,41],"tags":[21,93,12,58,16,27,20,19],"class_list":["post-479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-definitions","category-economics","category-entrepreneurship","category-innovation","category-marketing","category-strategy","category-technology","tag-alignment-commitment","tag-complexity-into-simplicity","tag-design-thinking","tag-disambiguation","tag-fearless-marketing","tag-positioning-message","tag-results-outcomes","tag-revenue-pursuit"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/02\/IdeaInventInnovate.png?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p25ukk-7J","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/481"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/steinvox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}