Jason Pontin, Editor in Chief and Publisher.
Mark Ostow

From the Editor

The Geography of Innovation

The global culture of valuable, fresh thinking.

  • January/February 2008
  • By Jason Pontin

What is innovation, and how may it best be fostered by companies and other organizations?

I am just back from three weeks of travel, having visited biotechnology startups in Germany and media companies in India, and I return convinced that what is called the "innovation economy" is its own nation, whose citizens share a common way of seeing and working. (Earlier speculations on the subject were published on this page in the September/October 2006 issue.)

It is best to begin by asserting what innovation is not. Innovation is not invention, and still less is it scientific discovery. An innovation must be valuable, which means it must exist in a market or some more general social context of supply and demand.

A special report published by the Economist last October and edited by Vijay Vaitheeswaran floated a definition proposed by the Organization for Economic Coöperation and Development, a think tank. Innovation, according to this formulation, encompasses "new products, business processes, and organic changes that create wealth or social welfare." The Economist also cites a simpler definition from Richard Lyons, the chief learning officer of Goldman Sachs: "fresh thinking that creates value."

Advertisement

Either definition will do, although both smack of the jargon of management consultants. For me, neither definition captures the discomforting novelty of true innovations. Innovation disrupts our existing way of doing business or creates entirely new ways of doing things. Always, innovations are embraced by those who find them valuable, are hyperbolized by the companies and organizations that benefit from their adoption, but are resisted by incumbent companies and organizations and conservative customers and users. When an innovation is sufficiently accepted by enough people, however, resistance to that innovation becomes feckless and fruitless--it amounts to an attempt to pretend that reality is other than how it is.

Expressed this way, it might seem that innovation, while possessing the force of the inevitable, would be regarded warily by institutions whose function is to promote continuity and stability. Indeed, some bureaucrats and religious leaders would prefer to mitigate innovation's influence.

But in the United States and Europe, and even more so among those who, no matter their physical location, really inhabit some outpost of the innovation economy, there is a common conviction that innovation is a powerful force for good that should be encouraged and lauded. That's because innovation expands human possibilities and is the single most important cause of economic growth. In the same special report, the Economist cited the McKinsey Global Institute's demonstration that competition and innovation, and not information technology alone, led to the productivity gains around the world during the 1990s.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

geoffwaite

1 Comment

  • 1489 Days Ago
  • 01/16/2008

Innovation by degrees

A good and astute article.  The "nation of innovation" is an interesting observation, and any attendee of the various conferences on innovation would no doubt agree.  I do not think that this is an anomaly, or some wierd branch of business.  Rather, it is a consequence of the state of evolution of the young management science of innovation.  Think of Innovation management as being at the point where Product Development was in the 1980s:  Stage-Gate was just emerging as a discipline (but many bucked against it then - not many do now).  QFD was a 'wierd' science from Japan which many were saying "would never work in the US", DfSS didn't exist.  I beleive that Innovation will be as well understood and managed in a few years time as Product Devlopment is now.

On the point of Innovation being disruptive and warily regarded by some institutions: Innovation doesn't have to be disruptive, or breakthrough, nor totally change the way something is done. 

This is why businesses acknoweldge that there are 'flavors' of innovation:  disruptive innovation, incremental innovation, breakthough innovation, sustaining innovation and so on.  Looked at this way, all successful companies must embrace innovation, but only some will strive for breakthrough or disruptive innovation, and then only some of the time.

Semantics?  Perhaps - but understanding, learning, management and improvement require a common language.  The work of many,  including the Product Development Management Association (PDMA), seeks to achieve this and help bring innovation out of the mystery zone and into good repeatable business management.

Geoff Waite.  Sagentia.  Boston

PS - I guess I'm part of the exception club, being a product of the Cambridge, England phenomenon!

Reply

ionic3

1 Comment

  • 1332 Days Ago
  • 06/21/2008

Re: Innovation by degrees

As a graduate student at University of Texas (1989), having the opportunity to become part of a research group studying "long waves,"  it was agreed that during the Great Depression of the 1930's, innovation did not "bunch" or "cluster" as was previously thought, only to be released in later years driving the growth during the Second World War.

Jason Pontin's explanation of innovation
and copying the "Economist's" article
addresses that innovation is a behavior which
confirms its definition by its social and economic contributions, a correlation versus invention.

P. Rotman
Illinois
Workforce Development

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Printing Parts

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Life Technologies

Layar

BIND Biosciences

Twitter

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement