Ingenuity
blog | philmckinney | February 27, 2009 at 12:07 pm
In a recent BusinessWeek article, Bruce Nussbaum made the proclamation that innovation is dead.
“Innovation” died in 2008, killed off by overuse, misuse, narrowness, incrementalism and failure to evolve. It was done in by CEOs, consultants, marketeers, advertisers and business journalists who degraded and devalued the idea by conflating it with change, technology, design, globalization, trendiness, and anything “new.”
I agree (previously mentioned in the August 27, 2006 Killer Innovations podcast on the Corporate Corruption Of Innovation). I don’t agree that the next thing is “transformation”. Bruce puts forth the rational behind transformation as:
It implies radical transformation of our systems—education, health-care, economic growth, transportation, defense, political representation. It puts the focus on people, designing networks and systems of their wants and needs. It relies on humanizing technology, not imposing technology on humans. It approaches uncertainties with a methodology that creates options for new situations and sorts through them for the best quickly.
In stead, I would put forward that we need to focus on the key component that enables innovation and transformation – ingenuity. What is the difference? A definition of innovation I like is:
Innovation is the embodiment, combination, or synthesis of knowledge in original, relevant, valued new products, processes, or services.
While the definition of ingenuity is:
Ingenuity is the power of creative imagination; the quality of being cleverly inventive or resourceful; inventiveness
Ingenuity is the key ingredient to creating innovation. Ingenuity is the smallest element of innovation … the spark that starts it off. Innovation is the outcome of applying an individuals ingenuity.
In my opinion, we are squashing ingenuity out of our students and workers. We reward conformance in approach and doing well on tests. Rote memorization is the skill of success rather than creative problem solving.
So, I would put forth that for 2009, we should focus on improving and nurturing individuals inherent ingenuity to create innovations. We need to find ways to create incentives for individuals to use their ingenuity to solve social and economic issues while also creating products and services that improve our lives.
What incentives would you create if you were in charge of a business or government?
Tags: education, government, incentive, ingenuity, school
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
on email
on Eventful
on Facebook
on Linkedin
on youtube
Facebook Fan Page
iTunes
podcast rss feed
Zune
I fundamentally believe that creativity cannot be incentivised. It just doesn’t work that way. What does work is when people are allowed permission to try and fail.
Our education system is designed to teach our young people the ‘right’ way, not to make mistakes. Yet there are millions of people who find their passion and ability and plug into their creativity every day. In their hobbies, in their parenting, in their relationships. Give individuals permission to fail and they will stretch boundaries themselves
Incentives no – but give them time to develop – to find their passion wether it is dance or stamp collecting. It doesn’t matter what it is, as they will then bring with them a creative spirit into the other areas of their life.
I am working on a programme to develop entrapreneurs and enterprise for the over 50’s community here in the UK. Let me tell you innovation is definitely not dead, its just been shackled to the point of inertia. It needs little to wake it, just the affirmation that it is OK to dream and imagine what if. Why are we so successful with developing innovation with the older generation? Frankly its because I think its because they don’t care if they fail or not, they have nothing to prove.
Incentives no, but providing tools for collaboration, networks for sharing ideas face to face and innovation mentors- now I think that will work
Barry Bassnett
I certainly agree that the term innovation is so misused today that it is almost worthless.
Innovation is not as most people think of it, ie. simply changing something. It is a series of processes that begin with insight and ideation (or ingenuity as you call it), creativity, which is the modeling of an idea into concrete form, and an innovation pipeline, which is the development of promising ideas into transformative products or services.
Can it be incented? Perhaps, but insight and ideation, or creativity, has to come from passion. An incentive might be a culture that encourages people to plumb this passion for ideas, and provides the tools for them to do it.
This kind of culture is in many ways, a permission to have ideas, to be creative. It also acts as a form of personal development, or growth, which is the strongest incentive there is.
Businesses and organisations care about success (however that may be measured). Innovation tools are to make that success easier, more predictable and with a higher return on investment than a trial and error – scattershot approach.
There is seldom a need to ask permission to be successful. There is seldom a need to incent individuals or organisations for the process if the return for the result is high enough.
Recognition of a gap that exists between the success that is desired and where current behaviours will lead too is usually the wakeup call for different thinking. Often this gap is just not recognised or acknowleged because of fear. If “innovation” as a term is confusing, ambiguous or hard to understand then it adds to the fear factor and decreases in acceptabilty of the practices and tools that can truly help.
Reducing the fear and having the recognition that something different needs to be done is often enough to allow those little sparks of ingenuity to build.
“Innovation” is dead, Long live “different but structured ways of thinking that can help us achieve the success we desire through best use of our creativity”
Snappy, eh?
Ed
From my limited view of some large IT/tech organisations, in order to climb to the peak of the corporate ladder, the right balance of the following is needed:
1. Following the structured processes (conformance with processes), and over-achieving the targets that can be reached within those rigorous processes.
2. In order to over-achieve in the above, right timing and luck is needed in addition to point 3.
3. To your point, a great level of ingenuity is needed. This comes in many forms – but always while conforming to point 1. For example, by playing various business units against each other in order to get a larger project/idea through to success.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Nussbaum is an interesting writer and commentator. But coming from a “design” background, his focus is generally on “design” in a way that is sort of limited, I feel.
Many designers, whether they be graphic, industrial or product designers, think that design is the ONLY way innovation can express itself. And as the fountainheads of this push, designers are by self-definition, the only innovators in the chain.
So when times are tough, the method often used by designers to make their mark, is to “get a new brand”, or “get a new logo”or “design a new product”.
Ergo, transformation as the next new descriptor.
I’d argue that it’s the process of innovation that’s important, not the name of the activity.
Michael Zerman
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
PS: I’m certainly not being a “designer-basher” as I know quite a few, and worked as one at times in my career. Simply, design is very important, but it’s NOT the only important factor in achieving success, however that’s defined.