Innovation is NOT Knowledge [Dutch]

Als zelfs de (zelfbenoemde) politieke partij van innovatie met open ogen stapt in de valkuil en de lobby van de kennis sector, is er dan nog hoop? Zie het artikel op de website van D66 dat gaat over het stimuleren van innovatie en tegelijkertijd over investeren in kennis. Zucht...

Innovation in Indian style

Some lessons from this 15 minute TEDx talk about innovation at TEDxGolfLinksPark from designer Aradhana Goel, Director for IDEO India.

Innovation is about the outcome. Being the first is irrelevant, the process is almost irrelevant. Its about the right mindset. Therefore, copying is meaningful and legitimate.

Things change so fast (in India), that predicting the future is futile. It is about controlling the present to be in the future at all that counts.

And many more insights about why innovation and innovators in India are different from the western world. This helps us understanding that it is not about following the examples of successful leaders in the west (Apple, Google), because that will create more followers. To innovate means to be different. And it seems that also the climate and the rules for innovation differs based on the environment one is in. See the video:

10 Myths of innovation

Here a list of innovation myths that I really like. The list is created by Scott Anthony and Josh Suskewicz. Many 'experts' of innovation I know still believe in several of these myths.

1) Innovation is random
2) Only creative geniuses can innovate
3) You're either an innovator or you're not
4) Innovation happens in the R&D lab
5) We will win with superior technology
6) Innovation is all about improved performance
7) Our customers will be a critical source of innovation insight
8) Game changing innovation is done only by entrepreneurs
9) We will win by targeting the biggest markets
10) Innovation requires big bets

For the whole list and introduction, click here

image by Flickr user crabchick

Do Innovation Consultants Kill Innovation?

Are companies more innovative than ever before? Judging from the vast number of Fortune 500 companies professing their commitment to innovation, the answer is yes.

But we sense that the more a company talks, thinks, and strategizes about innovation, the less real, big innovation it produces. Take the electronics maker Philips, which introduced one of the world’s first electronic razors, the compact cassette, the CD, and many other game-changing inventions. In more recent years, Philips has been a fixture at innovation and design conferences, presenting impressive strategies, road maps, and processes. The company commands impressive sales--its market cap is about $15 billion--but most people would be hard-pressed to think of a recent exciting breakthrough from the Dutch company. Nokia, also a self-proclaimed innovation leader, is another example of a company that has been very good at innovation strategizing but not so good at following through on its promise.

See remaining article here...

Cluster Buster

Zebras are beautiful. They are powerful. They exist in nature. But if someone told you that you could paint a white jackass with black stripes and call it a zebra, you would send them packing. The necessary and sufficient conditions for breeding zebras are two mature adults of opposite gender, springtime, and some privacy.

Economic clusters are effective. They are powerful. They exist in nature. So why do most economic policy makers think they can take some real estate, paint it with an anchor tenant and a name, and call it a cluster? The necessary, and often sufficient, condition for clusters is successful entrepreneurship.

Article by Daniel Isenberg on the website of The Economist about Clusters.

Image from Flickr user doug88888