When entering Google with “innovation” and “company”, I have just obtained more than eleven million results, and I already find, in the top ten, some of my texts: they must be there by age. Yes, I have been reading and writing about this topic for a long time to learn, and lately I have been studying sobering cases of business innovation. Back in the 90s, it seemed to me that traditional creativity courses were not contributing enough to promote innovation in the company, and I wanted to study how it arises, how novelty appears in the most innovative companies.
The brainstorming sessions I attended seemed too festive to me, and the Metaplan technique, which was surely more effective, was oriented, in my opinion and above all, to making collective decisions, to thinking as a team. By the way, at that time, I was struck by the fact that the philosophy of the TRIZ method, developed by Genrich Altshuller in the USSR, was no longer widespread in companies. In addition, although there was no doubt that divergent or lateral thinking had to be promoted, it seemed to me that we should also nurture conceptual, analytical, systemic, connective, inferential, synthetic, critical, abstractive thinking…, not to mention the cultivation of genuine intuition. Russell Ackoff said that we do not need so much to think of better solutions, as to think better of problems.
I did not intend to make great discoveries in my study, but I did want to arrive at my own syntheses and abstractions with a certain foundation, that is, to learn: there is much to learn. Soon I found authors who already offered valuable results, and I started to add experiences and conclusions, while I documented on the Internet and also consulted some collected books. I distinguished between guru-authors and authors (like WS Humphrey or JS Rydz) who recounted their experiences as executives of innovative companies.
In fact, my concern for innovation began with my work performance, when I joined the International Telephone & Telegraph Research Center (ITT) in Madrid in 1972, and was reinforced with the arrival of the Information Society and what to me It seemed to me his alter ego, the economy of knowledge and innovation. So I have been relatively attentive to what the experts were saying, and I must confess that some have not convinced me; In fact, and for example, I believe that dividing the business world into leaders and followers carries the risk that the supposed followers inhibit human capital and, therefore, intelligence and creativity.
After this introduction, let's tune in. When speaking of innovation, such as creativity, intelligence, human capital, competence or quality, we do not all have the same thing in mind; we do not always give the same meanings to these and other signifiers. But, for the benefit of productivity and competitiveness, we should deepen the concept of innovation, and arrive at its most useful meaning in today's economy; we should make a deployment of the concept along different axes and, perhaps, agree on a common language in relation to its genesis, its impact, its nature…
In principle, to innovate would be to take a quantum leap; something more than materializing continuous improvement, or incorporating new technologies and emerging practices. I would point to methods, products and services, but not only at that. It would be associated with creativity, but it would go further. It could require the existence of formal R&D areas, or simply an ad hoc culture that catalyzes the expression of human capital. Innovation would be more of a process than an event, but each initiative would have to be analyzed with a systemic perspective and an open mind, focusing well on the expectations and needs of traditional and potential customers / users. I remember hearing Jonas Ridderstrale warn that it wasn't about emulating the best, but about being unique as a company.
Certainly we have to get the best out of information and communication technologies (as they already did, in their time and for example, the RCA of David Sarnoff, or Diebold with R. Koontz), but not all technology is ICT, not all innovation is technological. Technological renewal is necessary in companies as is continuous improvement, but innovating is certainly something more, and it would be worth recalling here sobering cases, recent and not so recent, such as Zara, Velcro, McDonald's, or Helena Rubinstein, or as plastics, shopping with a cart, the Walkman or the magnetic levitation train, in whose genesis computing did not appear.
Sometimes (see Kotelnikov), the innovation also points to the functioning or the culture of the organization, and here we would point to R. Eaton's Chrysler, H. Naito's Eisai laboratories, or the Ritz-Carlton hotel chain upon arrival by H. Schulze, for referring to different sectors. But what struck me most years ago was the presence of chance in many advances, both in the scientific world and in the business world. These were discoveries (X-rays, Teflon, black silicon, microwave oven, cyanoacrylate glue, some sweeteners and drugs…) that surely would not have arisen otherwise, and that is why it seems to me that there is still much to discover. let us guide by chance or by chance.
I will not elaborate much more, although the subject deserves it: there are experts who do it. I just wanted to underline the role, in the genesis of innovation, of elements such as:
- Human capital, if we overcome the synonymy with the term "human resources", and catalyze the expression of that in companies. Chance, in conjunction with attentive and receptive minds, as suggested by so many "serendipitous" discoveries. Connective thinking, that allows us to transfer some solutions to other problems, as F. Johansson emphasized in The Medici Effect. The systemic perspective, to anticipate the needs and expectations of the market, and ensure the success. Genuine intuition, to facilitate, in decisions, use of all the knowledge that we cannot access in a rational way. The evolution of values, customs, habits, etc., of society, including changes in laws, demographics and the economy.
The reader will sanction the value of these reflections. Obviously the list could be lengthened, and of course technical progress in different areas and sectors facilitates the arrival of numerous valuable novelties to the market; but I wanted to highlight elements such as the above, which perhaps deserve more attention from us. Perhaps companies should deploy or cultivate functional cultures (Ekvall, Robinson & Stern…) that facilitate a more intense and focused use of well understood human capital.
In truth, little is thought about companies, and perhaps one still hears the saying that "I don't pay you to think"; But it is that managers and executives do not give themselves enough moments of concentration and reflection, I am afraid. Intuition, by the way, usually emerges after thinking about things a lot, when reason has not resolved and the challenge is deeply assumed. In closing, I remind you not to stop at technological innovation: we would miss out on very valuable possibilities.
