How many times in our lives have we heard, read and seen the word “innovation”?
I would probably answer this question by saying that this word is nowadays part of our common dictionary.
I would probably answer this question by saying that this word is nowadays part of our common dictionary.
Do you know why? It is simple, innovations are part of our everyday’s life and it is just a matter of recognizing them and be aware of their existence.
Today I would like you to join me in an exciting journey that will lead us to the exploration of the fascinating concept of innovation.
Our adventure will start from the definition of innovation and continue throughout the observation of its various types and the investigations of its sources, ending with its close relationship with creativity, which will ultimately give us the chance to bring the analysis on a neuroscientific level.
Okay, no more chatting! Ready to go!
1st LAP: AMERICA
Many definitions have been given to this concept, suggesting the idea that there is not an official one. I think a good way to fully define innovation is starting to understand what innovation is not.
An innovation is not an invention. As a matter of fact, according to Jan Fagerberg (2004), an “invention is the first occurrence of an idea for a new product or process while innovation is the first attempt to carry it out into practice”.
So, it clearly emerges that innovation is considered something that has an impact on society.
And what’s the entity that determines whether or not this impact is going to occur?
The market.
This leads us to a second definition of innovation. Not only is something new that has been put into practice, but it could also be a combination of already existing factors, organized in a different and more valuable way.
In conclusion, no matter if it takes origin from new ideas or existing factors, an innovation needs to provide society a tangible impact in order to be considered as such.
Does it sound weird? No worries, the metaphor of the bottleneck is a good way to exemplify everything.
2nd LAP: EUROPE
Starting from the two definitions, we are now able to look at the the different types of innovation in relation to two dimension: the degree of value-added and the degree of newness.
 |
| Paul Wright - Invatech |
According to these two dimensions we have three types of innovation:
- Incremental Innovation, which is the minimum level required for a firm in order to survive into a market;
- Substantial Innovation, which creates business opportunities that most probably provide the company a competitive advantage:
- Radical (or Revolutionary) Innovation, which can extremely change a market, giving the company the desirable epithet of “game changer”.
When speaking of radical innovation, I believe it is fundamental to distinguish it from disruptive innovation, which actually makes existing things obsolete, creating de-facto a new market.
We cannot proceed in our journey without breaking a taboo first: the object of innovation.
Just ask yourselves a simple question: “when I imagine an innovation, what do I think of?”
I would guess most of you thought about product innovation. That is because, according to Doblin’s research, the highest number of innovations are actually related to the product. The very unexpected result was that shifting from frequency to value creation, product-related innovation dropped into the last position, giving head to innovation related to networking, business models and processes, breaking a very popular commonplace.
In conclusion, different kinds of innovation are possible, but most of all, the most effective ones in terms of profitability are the kinds which are focused on “something-else” than the products.
3rd LAP: AFRICA
What are the sources of innovation?
I consider myself as a visual person, therefore I believe a graphic representation could once again be useful to answer this challenging question.
 |
| User-Centered Design and Design-Driven Innovation (Verganti) |
Three main sources of innovation are considered in relation to two dimensions: the functionality and the meaning.
As it clearly emerges from the graph, we observe two basic action: pull and push. The former expresses the idea that the starting point is the market with its specific needs and these very specific needs are the innovation’s drivers; the latter, on the contrary, underlines that the starting point is the “wider part of the bottle” we saw earlier, emphasizing the fact that new inventions are “pushed” without proper consideration of whether or not they satisfy market needs.
When speaking of “pushing” we distinguish two different sources in relation to the two dimensions. The term “technology push” was introduced by Joseph Schumpeter and conveys that innovation is mainly related to functionality and efficiency. Instead, the “design driven” expresses the more recent shift in consumers’ behavior: we don’t buy products anymore, we buy meanings!
To offer a very complete understanding of the idea of pushing, I commit myself to Steve Job’s words, spoken in 1998: “A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them.”
Ok folks, at this point a last question remains: how is innovation scientifically possible? To answer this question we need to recall the first definition of innovation and complete it: innovation comes from invention, which, in turn, takes origin from creativity.
In this context, I want to go further by saying that creativity configures itself as the “connecting bridge” between our brain and innovation.
However, the human brain is a conservative organ, which means that its natural functions are set to survival. As a consequence, with new information the brain simply takes the easiest neurological path in order not to waste energy, by reactivating experienced categorization, avoiding creativity to occur.
In order to think outside of the box, the brain needs to avoid existing paths and creates new ones.
In other terms: know the box and just go outside of it! And this is possible only if the brain confronts with new stimuli you have never experienced before.
5th LAP: OCEANIA
Conclusions: Sharing some thoughts..
I think it is very interesting to underline how the idea of innovation has been many times related to the dimensions of newness and value-add.
As a matter of fact these two concepts have been repeated throughout our entire journey, both directly and indirectly (technology and meaning in lap three are closely linked to them), suggesting that innovation lives hand-in hand with them.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize how everyone of us does not have to seek innovation somewhere outside: innovation takes origin within ourselves.
“NOSCE TE IPSUM”
“Know yourself”
St. Augustine
-Michele Bellini-
