FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog
February 28, 2005
Present Innovation
Yesterday was my birthday. And amongst the many cards and gifts I received were two particularly wonderful presents. I got an iPod Shuffle from my wife and her sisters. And from my brother I received tickets to see Spam-a-lot, the Broadway version of cult-classic Monty Python and the Holy Grail. These gifts are an interesting contrast. I half-expected the iPod Shuffle. My wife knew I really wanted one and if I didn't get one for my birthday I was going to buy it myself. The tickets to Spam-a-lot were a complete surprise. It was an amazing gift that I never would've considered a possibility.
Examining these pair of objects and their circumstances, I've realized innovation is much the same way. I know it sounds like I am going out on a limb here, but think about it. One may innovate by evolution, continuously pushing the envelope in a predictable, but desirable way. Apple's new batch of colored iPod Minis are such a case, or Wendy's going healthy like all the other fast food restaurants and offering fruit bowls.
There is also innovation by revolution, something completely unexpected and absolutely perfect. To continue the iPod analogy, the Shuffle with its pack-of-gum size and necklace chic is pretty revolutionary. Or another such innovation is perhaps when Wendy's started giving customers the choice of switching out their fries for salad or chili in their combo meal a few months ago.
Both types of innovation are necessary. Yes, we need amazing unforeseen products, but we also need more powerful and more efficient varieties of technology we already possess. And either type of innovation can be successful for a business, if the choice is made to pursue such. I gave Apple's iPod and Wendy's restaurant as examples. What do you consider prominent cases of Evolutionary Innovation and Revolutionary Innovation?
Posted by Kevin Ohannessian at February 28, 2005 10:31 AM | Category: innovation + creativity |
7 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
FC NOW MENU
NEWSLETTERS
FC NOW CATEGORIES
FC READS
1. For one:Revolutionary innovation was the invention of transistors in 1947, & evolutionary innovation was the transistion from, say windows 98 to THE present XP version which has a friendlier & more attractive user-interface.
2.BLACKBERRY is what comes to my mind , the prime example of a revolutionary product for mobile pros.,& newer generation dynamic mobile phones undertaking evolutinary efforts for doing more of the same which we already r used to on desktops.
I agree that the iPOD is a true innovation because it resolved in an elegant way the problem of selling songs over the Internet legally. I don't agree that the Windows 98 to XP version is at that level in that it is mired in security flaws and offers a welcome mat to viruses of all sorts. The Blackberry, as fine a gadget as it is, is still a transitory product. There are a lot of gadgets and software out there, but much of it adds nothing to an over-riding problem.
Evolutionary innovation is not innovation at all. If the next product is following along trends, or worse, it is expected by the market, than these are just product line extensions. Your Shuffle gift was about as creative as the next 2gig Shuffle that has a small OLED screen. Not that it wasn't a good gift or the next generation Shuffle won't be a good product, but the word innovation should be used for those things that change peoples expectations not simply meet current desires.
I think that the term "innovation" is a generic term that has been forced to fit many specific definitions. Websters defines innovation as the act of introducing something new. This means that innovation can be evolutionary or revolutionary and anything between. By definition, the addition of a new name to a phone book would be considered innovation. (a bit lame, but you get my point) Introduction of the iPOD is certainly innovation, as was the invention of the transistor. We all innovate, even when we paint our living rooms, but very few actually "invent". Whenever I hear the word innovation, I mentally substitute the word "invention" and that helps me understand the magnitude of the innovation.
Webster's isn't the only authority on the definition of innovation. There's also the US Patent Office.
The Patent Office's top three criteria for granting a patent are utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. This means that in order to be patentable something must be not only useful and unusual, but also unanticipated by the market. Your iPod, as generational technology, probably doesn't qualify, although components within it may.
On the other hand, all creative expression is protected by copyright law, so that they play you saw was most certainly considered to be innovative under the law (whether it was good or not is another matter).
It stands to reason that your theater tickets were the more "innovative" gift, by all measures. Which doesn't rule out the iPod being the more thoughtful present--depending on how "innovative" a giftee you are, of course.
It seems many have thoughts on innovation. As for the iPod Shuffle being innovative or not. Apple would have been fine with the original iPod and the iPod Mini; the Shuffle was a nice surprise and should be considered an innovation as such.
And yes, the Spam-a-lot tickets were an utter surprise in every way and will provide great enjoyment where none was expected. I believe that is a good criteria for innovation.
In the health arena, some products are actually de-evolutionary. When products like Vioxx cause more problems than they solve, it's time for new thinking. Ironically, new thinking goes furthest when it stands on the shoulders of giants. Health product innovators do well to look at the root causes, across many scientific disciplines, for disease and the synergistic factors of optimal health. By studying and experimenting, nutraceutical innovators (e.g. EpicDental.com) can create products like Xylitol, a proven inhibitor of dental cavities.