Everyone wants ‘innovation’.
Fair enough, unless we innovate, we stand still, and get killed in the rush.
However, in my experience, it is not the number or quality of ideas that is the limiting factor, it is the execution of those ideas that limits us.
We do not need more ideas, we need more of them to see the light of day. Even if they fail, you will learn, and hopefully do better next time.
It is also necessary to define what you mean by ‘innovation’.
To some, an innovation is a change of pack design, to others, it means the development of an entirely new application of some basic science. Most fall somewhere in the middle.
To my mind, anything that results in new value being created can be classed as an innovation.
Then you get those who refer to innovators as disrupters, further clouding the landscape.
For example, Uber is often cited as a disrupter, a source of disruptive innovation. Do they create new value? Yes, a bit, but there have been taxis around since the Romans were building on the seven hills, so that is not new. What is new is the app that puts the ordering, payment and progress of the Uber to your pick up point in one place. The disruptive element is that the previous cosy registration systems of most cities and their taxi services have been thrown away, so what has been disrupted is something that added no value. The exception to this is the London Black taxi service, where ‘The knowledge’ is a huge barrier to entry, while delivering sustained certainty of high quality service.
I also do not like the ‘fail fast fail often’ crowd, as that becomes an excuse for a lack of due diligence.
What I do like is a stream of disciplined experiments, aimed at testing the veracity of a hypothesis, which becomes a platform for improvement.
In some markets this experimentation is easy, in others, it is extremely hard.
Similarly, in some contexts it is easy, and in others very hard.
For example, the successful tech companies are running A/B experiments all the time on their websites, making evolutionary changes to their algorithms constantly.
By contrast, if you want to test market a new consumer retail FMCG product aimed at mass distribution, you have a real problem. The choice is South Australia, or Western Australia, which some might say are not representative anyway. Testing your product in farmers markets, food service, or your wife’s friends remains an option, but rarely a good model for supermarket distribution.
Red herrings abound!
Do not let them distract you from the hard work of creating new value for customers.
