Fundamental principles for innovation – what´s your opinion?
Heinz Essman, contributing editor from South Africa, has introduced a set of proposed fundamental principles for innovation. It is indeed a
proposal and we are very interested in hearing your views on this. Welcome to
read the article at www.innovationmanagement.se and share your views on this topic on the forum!
Views: 20
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Jacobson on -
Without changing the topic, but rather to help frame it, here are "25 Definitions of Innovation" collected by Spigit's Hutch Carpenter, a regular contributor to Blogging Innovation and the LinkedIn innovation-related newsgroups, and just posted on the Spigit blog. (I'll try to get Hutch over here!) Each definition opens a new window on innovation and suggests new lines of inquiry and application. Well done. My definition is #14.
http://blog.spigit.com/Blog/View?blogentryid=286
-
Permalink Reply by Karin Wall on -
Hi Robert, thanks for your reply and pointing us to a very interesting blog post by Hutch Carpenter! I like this one " A change in a product offering, service, business model or operations which meaningfully improves the experience of a large number of stakeholders" But where do you draw the line between product development an innovation?
Robert Jacobson said:Without changing the topic, but rather to help frame it, here are "25 Definitions of Innovation" collected by Spigit's Hutch Carpenter, a regular contributor to Blogging Innovation and the LinkedIn innovation-related newsgroups, and just posted on the Spigit blog. (I'll try to get Hutch over here!) Each definition opens a new window on innovation and suggests new lines of inquiry and application. Well done. My definition is #14.
http://blog.spigit.com/Blog/View?blogentryid=286
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Jacobson on
-
Karin, I believe that an innovation may be cause for or contribute to a product development, but also that a product development cannot do the same for an innovation. For me, innovation is a usually unstructured mental act that may result in a product or its enhancement (among other things), but which can also result in something different -- for example, a composition, a new organization, or a new way of seeing things. Product development is a systematic, engineering-inspired effort to create a product and manage its development over a lifetime.
The tight association, even identity between innovation and invention is historical in Sweden (though it occurs, too, in other societies that are highly empirical). I deal with this cultural phenomenon -- which has consequences for policy and implementation -- in an article I'm now finishing up for Innovation Management. Readers, stay tuned!
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Derry on -
My colleague Andy Bruce, has condensed our years of research and working with companies like Nokia and Coca Cola into the "6 Ps" of Integrated Innovation Management. In his lastest book "Fast Track to Success - Innovation" he lays out what he thinks are the fundamentals of innovation management in a very practical and action-oriented way. In short we talk about the most innovative companies having strengths in these areas; (Innovation) Planning, Pipelines, Processes, Platform, People, Performance and through those into Innovation Projects (the 7th "P").
Before people get into the 'rules' of innovation our experience is that people need to understand what innovation is and is not. It's ot just product development and it shouldn't be confused with creativity, for example.
-
Permalink Reply by Heinz Essmann on -
Thanks Simon for the suggested read - I will certainly look into it!
Regarding your last paragraph, I most certainly agree with you on the need to clarify the term innovation. Too often it is confused with creativity - alone. Sure, creativity is part of the process, but it is certainly not synonymous with innovation. I am currently busy with a piece on this ( including what innovation is not) and hope to have it out soon...
Simon Derry said:My colleague Andy Bruce, has condensed our years of research and working with companies like Nokia and Coca Cola into the "6 Ps" of Integrated Innovation Management. In his lastest book "Fast Track to Success - Innovation" he lays out what he thinks are the fundamentals of innovation management in a very practical and action-oriented way. In short we talk about the most innovative companies having strengths in these areas; (Innovation) Planning, Pipelines, Processes, Platform, People, Performance and through those into Innovation Projects (the 7th "P").
Before people get into the 'rules' of innovation our experience is that people need to understand what innovation is and is not. It's ot just product development and it shouldn't be confused with creativity, for example.
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Derry on
-
Heinz, I have an article on barriers to innovation, which includes misunderstandings, which I am sending to Innovation Management to publish. It might be of interest to you?
-
Permalink Reply by Jayze Parker on -
Honestly, I think it is a terribly poor list.
People often come up with "fundamental principles" ; the best ones come in the form of a model - 4Ps etc; other times they are just a long list - 7 principles, 10 principles, 12, principles, 15 principles etc etc etc.
Sometimes the models provide new insights; often the lists are just badly thought out elements from various models from various domains (strategy, leadership etc etc etc) mishmashed into some monster.
The problem with the lists is lack of context.
There ARE fundamental principles...
...and the best way to identify them is to use context. For example, see how the value chain is used to place the 4ps here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RckadyrA4P8
Done this way, there are many, many fundamentals - so many that you have to group them; each domain has a set of fundamentals.
The goal is not really identifying principles (done a long time ago and easy to do with a bit of context and common sense), but clarifying confusions for newbies. And my God there is a lot of confusion around.
-
Permalink Reply by Heinz Essmann on
-
Thanks Jayze for your honest feedback.
In my opinion, models and principles are not to be confused. A model is something that needs context to be applicable, where as fundamental principles are exactly that - fundamental - and intended to be context agnostic. While I am sure this is an ambitious (possibly impossible) objective, it is something of a work-in-progress towards eliminating the noise that exists within the innovation management space - what you speak of as "confusion".
Deming once said that all models [and principles] are wrong, but some are useful. It is in this vain that I started this journey (not destination).
Jayze Parker said:Honestly, I think it is a terribly poor list.
People often come up with "fundamental principles" ; the best ones come in the form of a model - 4Ps etc; other times they are just a long list - 7 principles, 10 principles, 12, principles, 15 principles etc etc etc.
Sometimes the models provide new insights; often the lists are just badly thought out elements from various models from various domains (strategy, leadership etc etc etc) mishmashed into some monster.
The problem with the lists is lack of context.
There ARE fundamental principles...
...and the best way to identify them is to use context. For example, see how the value chain is used to place the 4ps here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RckadyrA4P8
Done this way, there are many, many fundamentals - so many that you have to group them; each domain has a set of fundamentals.
The goal is not really identifying principles (done a long time ago and easy to do with a bit of context and common sense), but clarifying confusions for newbies. And my God there is a lot of confusion around.
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Derry on
-
Heinz,
Thanks for your comments - I concur totally. Fundamental means that they work irrespective of context - they are 'fundamental'. I am not suggesting a 'model' in any way shape or form here as Jayze misinterprets! It is also not a 'list' as Jayze puts it but a series of elements, which in Andy Bruce's book, are developed further into a whole. I suggest that Jayze might buy the book, read it, then comment rather than issue a blinkered comment before understanding the 6 or so lines I put up as a suggestion.
Thank you for your considered response.
S
Heinz Essmann said:
Thanks Jayze for your honest feedback.
In my opinion, models and principles are not to be confused. A model is something that needs context to be applicable, where as fundamental principles are exactly that - fundamental - and intended to be context agnostic. While I am sure this is an ambitious (possibly impossible) objective, it is something of a work-in-progress towards eliminating the noise that exists within the innovation management space - what you speak of as "confusion".
Deming once said that all models [and principles] are wrong, but some are useful. It is in this vain that I started this journey (not destination).
Jayze Parker said:Honestly, I think it is a terribly poor list.
People often come up with "fundamental principles" ; the best ones come in the form of a model - 4Ps etc; other times they are just a long list - 7 principles, 10 principles, 12, principles, 15 principles etc etc etc.
Sometimes the models provide new insights; often the lists are just badly thought out elements from various models from various domains (strategy, leadership etc etc etc) mishmashed into some monster.
The problem with the lists is lack of context.
There ARE fundamental principles...
...and the best way to identify them is to use context. For example, see how the value chain is used to place the 4ps here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RckadyrA4P8
Done this way, there are many, many fundamentals - so many that you have to group them; each domain has a set of fundamentals.
The goal is not really identifying principles (done a long time ago and easy to do with a bit of context and common sense), but clarifying confusions for newbies. And my God there is a lot of confusion around.
-
Permalink Reply by Jayze Parker on
-
@ Heinz Essmann,
The goal is not ambitious at all. This is what everyone does all the time (schema).
Lists are useless. If you don’t recognise this, then you shouldn’t be doing this. Anyone can create a list. You cannot just add the term “fundamental” and hope the list gains significance.
There are two types of context: a) specific scenarios, such as banking and b) “in context of the business process.”
It’s just a list until you have demonstrated validity by pushing it through a). At this stage, it’s very much scientific process.
Then you make it “context agnostic” [an awful word, smells of intellectual misdirection and deceipt and weak thinking, trying to sound clever] by putting it in the context of the business process.
You’re aiming to create a model, though you deny it (which makes me laugh). Principles are for weaklings and have no foundation or direction. Anyone can put a bunch of principles together. Doesn’t mean anything.
Even then, the model may not be “fundamental.” That’s for others to decide (peer review). You’re probably not creating a “fundamental” because your elements are haphazardly thrown in from everywhere. It’s like a first draft (for example, I have grave doubts about your first point: “CEO and CXO’s lead culture and drive innovation – it always begins at the top”; Oh really? Not necessarily).
@ Simon Derry
YOU’RE WRONG! And clearly have no deep understanding.
-
Permalink Reply by Heinz Essmann on
-
Jayze, once again thanks for the honesty!
This is intended to be part of a model - a kind of precursor for guiding the application of a model.
Seeing as though you position yourself as knowledgeable, I would really appreciate it if you would help us with the list - make it better, add context where necessary. As I stated at the outset, it is a draft for discussion. I am not claiming it as truth, by any means.
If you are unable to see the value of a set of fundamental principles, suggest a valid alternative.
We are after all trying to understand the same thing here.
Thanks again.
Heinz
Jayze Parker said:@ Heinz Essmann,
The goal is not ambitious at all. This is what everyone does all the time (schema).
Lists are useless. If you don’t recognise this, then you shouldn’t be doing this. Anyone can create a list. You cannot just add the term “fundamental” and hope the list gains significance.
There are two types of context: a) specific scenarios, such as banking and b) “in context of the business process.”
It’s just a list until you have demonstrated validity by pushing it through a). At this stage, it’s very much scientific process.
Then you make it “context agnostic” [an awful word, smells of intellectual misdirection and deceipt and weak thinking, trying to sound clever] by putting it in the context of the business process.
You’re aiming to create a model, though you deny it (which makes me laugh). Principles are for weaklings and have no foundation or direction. Anyone can put a bunch of principles together. Doesn’t mean anything.
Even then, the model may not be “fundamental.” That’s for others to decide (peer review). You’re probably not creating a “fundamental” because your elements are haphazardly thrown in from everywhere. It’s like a first draft (for example, I have grave doubts about your first point: “CEO and CXO’s lead culture and drive innovation – it always begins at the top”; Oh really? Not necessarily).
@ Simon Derry
YOU’RE WRONG! And clearly have no deep understanding.
-
Permalink Reply by Heinz Essmann on
-
I look forward to it Simon. Thanks.
Simon Derry said:Heinz, I have an article on barriers to innovation, which includes misunderstandings, which I am sending to Innovation Management to publish. It might be of interest to you?
© 2012 Created by Sven Andersson.
Powered by
