12.jpg

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

- Albert Einstein




Share this...

Share on Facebook

Home Company Blog
Company Blog
The innovation gap

Leaders in half the organizations in North America are not satisfied with the level of innovation. A series of surveys over the past 15 years by organizations such as IBM, Accenture and Ideaction have delivered the same results:

-      Over 80% of the leaders believe that innovation is important for their future success

-      Less than 30% of the same leaders are satisfied with the current level of innovation in their organizations

This means that half of the organizations in North America want more innovation and are not getting enough. Our research has identified two main causes for the innovation gap.

-      Over the past 25 years we have moved from an industrial economy to a knowledge and service economy. The problem is that most established organizations have changed too slowly and they still use the same business models and practices as they did 25 years ago.

-      During the same period, the nature of the problem we face has also evolved. 25 years ago most of the problems were complicated and the analytical problem solving process we learned in school worked well. Today, most of the problems we face are complex; there are no obvious answers and they include uncertainties and ambiguities that cannot be eliminated. Today, the old thinking and problem solving skills we learned in school are not enough.

Leaders know that if they keep doing the same things, their results cannot get better. Change in our environment is accelerating and their organizations are standing still, lame ducks in the path of competitors or the next crisis.

But what can the leaders do?  They have never learned how to deal with complex problems and how to prepare their organization to support innovation. Most MBA graduates have barely talked in school about innovation and innovative organizations.

There are few good models for leaders to follow, including the models we present in our new book Innovative Intelligence.  Leaders need to act promptly, time is against them.

 
Defining innovation

In a recent conference on innovation where I was a closing keynote, 12 speakers spoke eloquently about “innovation” but not one of them defined what they meant by innovation. At the end of the day the participants were more confused than enlightened.

The word innovation has been so abused that it doesn’t mean anything anymore.

-      Governments and journalist usually mean scientific and technology Research and Development. 

-      Too many people confuse innovation and creativity. Creativity is having new ideas, useful or not. Innovation is implementing new ideas that create meaningful change. The difference is dramatic and often is explains why so many organizations failed at “innovation”.

-      Conservative organizations often use “innovation” to describe continuous improvement. They want the aura from the name but do not really want to create meaningful change.

-      Startups usually define innovation as radical change.

-      Some people talk about innovation in business models, in service, in products, in processes, in marketing or in sales. The word is the same but the processes to solve these problems are fundamentally different.

-      People use innovation as a goal when we should be talking about the process of innovating, just like we talk about accounting or marketing.

I believe that if we want to be serious to create real and significant innovation we need to always qualify the word innovation. We can talk about marketing or process innovation, we can talk about small improvement innovation or radical change innovation, and we can talk about product innovation or service innovation. Only then can we use language to make progress instead of using it to create excuses for why we failed.

We define innovation as creating value with new and implemented ideas.