Follow this blog:
RSS

Striking the right balance between innovation and invention

By | October 2, 2012, 2:43 PM PDT

One of the most important keys to creating successful new products and services is finding a balance between invention and innovation. And this can best be found by making sure creative minds aren’t just coming up with cool ideas, but also by teaming up with strategists and business executives to understand their markets. So write Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, and James Milway, until recently executive director of the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity and the Martin Prosperity Institute at Rotman.

These are their conclusions in the recently published article “User-Driven Innovation: Putting an End to Inventing in the Dark,” which appears in the Fall 2012 issue of Rotman magazine. (The piece is not available for free online, but can be downloaded for a fee here.) Martin and Milway argue that companies need to also clearly understand the difference between “innovation” and “invention,” which the authors describe as two discrete concepts.

Sure, executives, journalists, engineers, designers, and consumers alike tend to use both terms interchangeably. But Martin and Milway begin their argument by making clear that invention is “the creation or discovery of something new to the world,” and is thus different from innovation, which refers to “a new product or process that adds value to somebody’s life.” The way to balance both? By turning the focus away from only the traditional model of inventor-driven research and toward including a more practical sense of user-driven innovation.

Martin and Milway point to two ways to achieve the latter: Enabling users to do something they couldn’t before and lowering the cost of what users are already doing.

In other words, practical innovation involves improving the experiences of many, versus satisfying a creative individual’s curiosity. And to engage in such practical innovation, they prescribe shifting such an emphasis on the role of hard science toward the value of marketing and business strategy.

Thankfully, because this is an article about practical innovation, the authors offer tips on how to achieve it by refreshing innovation policies at the government level for a macro view. They suggest creating programs that connect inventors with business people well-versed in markets and potential customers, via business and engineering schools. In addition, they encourage the teaching of innovation skills (including design thinking) earlier than university, and starting in the kindergarten through 12th grade years.

Finally, on a more micro level, they state that the lean start-up model may be the best style of business in which striking a balance between innovation and invention may be possible. Martin and Milway describe lean start-ups (the term was coined by entrepreneur Eric Ries) as “temporary in nature, designed specifically to discover and implement a profitable business model that can start small and be scaled up quickly for commercial success.” They point to fast-growing companies that are quick to attract funding, such as Dropbox, an cloud-based file-sharing service, and Grockit, an online test-prepration network for students, as examples. Both rely on fast product development cycles “measured in hours, not years, and is necessarily coupled with customer contact,” they write.

The goal of lean start-up thinking is always to make products with real markets to support them after discovering such markets, rather than just pumping out cool, admirably original ideas or even launching slick, functional objects and then trying to convince people to buy them.

And lean start-up thinking isn’t just for the young and the ambitious, Martin and Milway conclude. In a time of financial uncertainty and ongoing international economic turmoil, corporations and governments would be wise to learn to think small — like a lean start-up — to win big.

Image: Hakan Dahlstrom/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Reena Jana

About Reena Jana

Reena Jana was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2011 to 2013.

Reena Jana

Reena Jana

Contributing Editor

Reena Jana has written for the New York Times, Wired, Harvard Business Review online, Fast Company, Architectural Record, Artforum, Time Out New York, Harper's Bazaar, and GQ. Previously, she was the innovation department editor at BusinessWeek. She holds degrees from Columbia University and Barnard College.

Follow her on Twitter.

Reena Jana

Reena Jana

Reena occasionally consults with companies, and when her writing discusses a corporation or other organization with which she has worked, she will disclose this fact. Reena does not hold any investments in the companies she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
3
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Idea Bazaar
First thing is stating clearly what the challenge is, and posting it where the public can see it. Preferably, with a prize, like a Nobel or Fields medal. NineSigma is an example of a format for an idea bazaar. There is a definite public need here for crowdsourcing the solution of pollution and other apparently unsolvable problems.
Posted by Wilmot McCutchen
3rd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
New buzz words?
We already knew that the difference was spelled out by the words meant by R&D.
To me, Research meant doing, first re-search the files and literature to see what has been done before. That would be followed by the other thing in "R" - experimental research - best done at larger orgs with bigger budgets for what was called "internal (sponsored) research.
After a feasible result, the activity was turned over to a staff to Develop the idea into a feasible product or process.
This article is just another way of discussing what industry, government and universities have done for at least a century.
Posted by cfthelin
3rd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
THANK YOU!
I've been repeating myself for decades on this subject...innovation and invention are TOTALLY different things,despite the way the language gets used.

Innovation is nearly risk-free, rapid, cheap and makes minimal changes to a concept.

Invention is risky, expensive, slow and brings fundamentally new capabilities to the world.

Innovation pays off rapidly, which in a world of 90 day investors, is popular. But you cannot get from horse and buggy to aircraft through innovation.

The biggest single problem with design (including architecture) in today's world is that it requires minimal education for practitioners about engineering--making things so that they work reliably, properly and require minimal maintenance.

It used to both disturb and confuse me, until I looked into becoming an industrial designer, and found that it is an ART degree requiring almost no practical knowledge whatsoever.

In order to be functional other than as an aesthetic, a thing must first perform a function reliably, safely and preferably at minimum manufacturing and life-cycle cost.

AFTER you achieve these goals, it often will be aesthetically attractive with little extra work. Making it aesthetic but non-functional is a travesty.

FIRST is defining your problem or goal. This step is usually skimped upon.
SECOND is recognizing that you may have to redefine that problem or goal.
THIRD is recognizing when you have discovered a solution which may apply to unknown problems.

Very frequently, we define our problem/goal far to narrowly, and often without sufficient consideration of the factors behind the problem.

If you want an efficient refridgerator/freezer, then you don't start with an upright cabinet which permits all of the previously paid for cool air to exit each time the door opens. You don't assume that everything stored requires the same or even similar environmental conditions--you start by deciding you need to store foodstuffs, examining the kinds and requirements for them, and considering their relative popularity and possible changes in the future. You consider that various people need different types of access, that placing things inconviently leads to waste.

An innovation is easy because you don't have to teach the market why they need the device--they already buy it.

Invention requires education of the market--and often, no one knows what a device will be useful for...when I wanted my own computer back in 1972, almost no one (including myself) truly understood what it would useful for...but I knew it leveraged my abilities, and that sufficed for me (now, if I had only realized that computers and communications were really for entertainment, I'd have been in position to make trillions.)

Industry and government routinely turn down cost-effective, well-engineered and practical designs--not because they won't work, or won't make money, but because there are vested interests in the current method, interests who stand to lose if a new method is adopted.

Designing a better mousetrap doesn't guarantee success.

But selling people an everyday need like water, in a slightly more convinent form, by spending 80% of the income convincing them to buy it, now that, will make money. Mostly because you can acquire the resource nearly free,and you can avoid paying for the waste that the shipping and bottling represent by effectively lying to the public.
Posted by wizoddg
11th Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!