I'm still thinking about our recent innovation debate. Should we take a positivistic approach to innovation? Should we view innovation as something that will always work and always generate benefits? Of course not since the whole idea contradicts the core nature of what innovation is. There are several definitions out there but looking more closely you realize they differ in syntax yet point in the same direction. Innovation is thus an idea transformed into some sort of reality for the first time (e.g. change to an existing product, new product, change to an existing process, new process, change to an existing organizational entity, new organizational entity, etc.). The result? Microsoft introduce Windows Vista and new Office with changed user interface (clear innovation) yet people do not buy it because years of exposure to a specific user interface logic has wired brains in a way that now needs complete rewiring and that is a slow process. Time will tell but I know a lot of people who have kept Office 2003 and Windows XP. In the same breath Microsoft admits failing to achieve sales targets so the innovative Vista is not really a success yet nobody can deny its innovativeness. Coca Cola's experiment with a new taste is another example of an innovation with in this case pretty dismal consequences.
So, the reality is innovations do not always bring positive results (i.e. improved competitiveness, increased market share, higher profits, higher revenues, etc.). Should we then have a negative stance towards innovation? The answer is a straightforward NO! Innovations are a result of ideas put forward by individuals or teams who bear with it enormous personal risks of failure. The worst way one could react in is by saying we are not supporting innovations because they can fail. Why? Because people simply won't suggest any new ideas any more and in today's competitive environment that is a suicide. Of course innovations can fail and they will but normally for every 10 innovations a couple of successful ones can bring such benefits that all other failures are quickly forgotten. What we really need is a realistic approach to innovation in the following way:
- all innovations are good (we openly and eagerly accept all ideas although only the best are really turned into innovations)
- many innovations will fail but we do not worry because a minor few will bring benefits far outweighing all the failures
So in summary, innovations are there to stay as they are absolutely necessary if companies are to retain competitive advantage but realistically they are often more likely to fail than succeed. I'm afraid facing this reality is the only key to success.
