Dear Lars,
Thanks for your feedbacks. I would like to discuss two issues related to what you are saying.
1. Definition of Innovation. My question is whether Design can, (or is it a good idea to) operate outside the definition or meanings assigned to innovation by scholars of 'Innovation Studies'. I would be interested in knowing your opinion on this paper 'Innovation Studies: An Invention of a Specialty' by Godin: http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/IntellectualNo8.pdf
Abstract:
"The study of technological innovation is over one hundred years old. From the early 1900s onward, anthropologists, sociologists historians, and economists began theorizing about technological innovation, each from his own respective disciplinary framework.
However, in the last forty years an economic and "dominant" understanding of technological innovation has developed: technological innovation defined as commercialized invention. This paper documents the origins of this representation of innovation and the tradition of research to which it gave rise: "innovation studies". More specifically, it analyzes what distinguishes this tradition from that concerned with technological change as the use of inventions in industrial production, and looks at why such a tradition originated in Europe".
2. Jobs' Apple and Disruptive Innovation. J. Allworth wrote that Steve Jobs had solved the Innovator's Dilemma. I cannot judge whether Allworth is right or not about that. I am also not sure whether his claim on how Jobs did it was indeed correct.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/steve_jobs_solved_the_innovato.html
However, taking your example of iPhone vs Nokia but not referring to creative destruction (I have yet to read Schumpeter, so it is beyond right now) and staying with Christensen's model of Disruptive Innovation. Is it correct to say that, the case of iPhone does not fit in New Market or Low End Disruption? What do you think?
Best,
Rosan
-----Original Message-----
Hi Rosan,
The first definition, from the esa website, appears to cover a fairly large part of all activities in middle and top management of any organization. Practically any change with the purpose of improving the customer experience or increasing the profit, successful or not, falls within. For instance changing from a bespoke financial system to SAP, in order to lower operational costs would qualify, even if the actual cost increases. Few scholars would, however, categorize this as "innovation".
There are no exact, agreed definition in the field. But most focus on the successful introduction to a market of something new. "New" then in meaning of being previously not used in any larger degree on that market. The "newity" is what you bring up in the discussion on radicality. Some give the example of the internet as a radical innovation as it has dramatically changed a lot of peoples and organizations lives. Some argue that the internet is a 30 year incremental innovation of a series of technologies, products and business models. The level of radicality may need to consider from which stakeholder perspective it is being measured.
You may also note that Schumpeter included the concept of "creative destruction", that an innovation will also destroy other products, companies and/or competencies. The level of creative destruction can also be considered when categorizing developments as innovative or not. Apple iPhone vs Nokia could be an example of a high level of creative destruction. Nokia's owners has lots billions of dollars and thousands of people has lost their jobs in Finland because of Apple's innovation.
You may expect difficulties in your communication with other researchers if adopting the esa definition. If you do, be clear about your definition.
B.R
Lars
Ps I am not endorsing Apple products or stand to benefit in anyway from their success. They are just well known, extremely successful innovation company selling products in well-know categories.
Lyytinen and Rose = Internet is a radical innovation Oxford handbook = Internet is an incremental innovation
|