Definitions: National Innovation
Brent Edwards, who writes the Innovation Science blog, presents U.S. presidential candidates' definitions of innovation. It's amazing how different the definitions are among the candidates. Brent thinks that Senator Barack Obama provided the best of the bunch:
"Innovation is the creation of something that improves the way we live our lives."
You can see from all the various definitions just how difficult it is to come up with a standard definition: one that is broad enough to cover all the important elements of innovation yet short enough to be practical. I've always liked the definition I use on this blog: "The profitable implementation of ideas," as it highlights the value creating/profit element of innovation. That said, the Broken Bulbs definition looks at innovation at the firm level, not the national policy level.
If I were to tweak this definition for national-level innovation, I'd probably remove the term "profitable" and replace it with something that highlights innovation's positive role in society. Something along the lines of: "The implementation of widely dispersed ideas that, for the most part, contribute to the progress of a nation." You could extend this last part to the progress of humanity if you want (not a bad idea methinks).
If you're talking about firm-level innovation, use the first definition. If you're discussing national-level innovation, use the second definition. Both levels need to be considered because the one influences the other.
Porter (1980) and Christensen and Raynor (2003) agree that while sound macro policies are necessary for national development, they are not sufficient in themselves. In the case of Japan, Christensen and Raynor write: "There truly seem to be microeconomic roots to the country's economic malaise."
Al Ries, a brand consultant, takes a different view: he thinks that Japan suffers from a branding problem (in addition to a huge demographic problem). This video is interesting and should be watched by anybody who is thinking about pouring any money into the latest "Asian Miracle" via the China stock market. More on that in another post!
.
"Innovation is the creation of something that improves the way we live our lives."
You can see from all the various definitions just how difficult it is to come up with a standard definition: one that is broad enough to cover all the important elements of innovation yet short enough to be practical. I've always liked the definition I use on this blog: "The profitable implementation of ideas," as it highlights the value creating/profit element of innovation. That said, the Broken Bulbs definition looks at innovation at the firm level, not the national policy level.
If I were to tweak this definition for national-level innovation, I'd probably remove the term "profitable" and replace it with something that highlights innovation's positive role in society. Something along the lines of: "The implementation of widely dispersed ideas that, for the most part, contribute to the progress of a nation." You could extend this last part to the progress of humanity if you want (not a bad idea methinks).
If you're talking about firm-level innovation, use the first definition. If you're discussing national-level innovation, use the second definition. Both levels need to be considered because the one influences the other.
Porter (1980) and Christensen and Raynor (2003) agree that while sound macro policies are necessary for national development, they are not sufficient in themselves. In the case of Japan, Christensen and Raynor write: "There truly seem to be microeconomic roots to the country's economic malaise."
Al Ries, a brand consultant, takes a different view: he thinks that Japan suffers from a branding problem (in addition to a huge demographic problem). This video is interesting and should be watched by anybody who is thinking about pouring any money into the latest "Asian Miracle" via the China stock market. More on that in another post!
.
posted by Gordon Graham at 9:21 PM
2 Comments:
Hi Gordon,
Thank for the link. I suggest changing the word "profitable" in your definition to something that allows innovation to be tied to non-commerce applications. Are innovations only tied to making money? What about innovations in teaching? What I suggest is that the key to innovation is that the invention is valuable by some measure--particularly valued by others and has the effect of being used by others to move their field forward. Strange that we find ourselves debating the definition of what is probably the business term of the year, isn't it?
Thanks Brent. I do agree with your point about profit in the definition of innovation. The definition used by the U.S. National Innovation Initiative (2004) covers both the profit/social aspects quite well: "The intersection of invention and insight, leading to the creation of social and economic value." You've probably guessed, but I quite enjoy attempting to fine tune definitions for innovation -- I think it's vitally important! The concept of innovating because it's "right" and not just because it's "profitable" leads on to the ideas of creativity versus problem solving and proactive versus reactive innovation. It's easy to have the "will" to innovate when a problem is enountered (problem solving), but where does the will to innovate come from when there is no apparent problem (creativity)? It all starts to get a bit philosphical in the end. And culture starts to enter into the picture. Still, it's a fascinating subject!
Post a Comment
<< Home