(Article) Kastelle, T., & Steen, J. (2011). Ideas are not innovations. Prometheus, 29(2), 199-205.
Read more
The article ‘Ideas are not innovation’ is a critical dive into some underlying assumptions about innovation as a concept for businesses and attempts to explain how innovation goes beyond just creativity and new ideas. It argues that in order for innovation to be truly defined as impactful, it needs to be supplemented by the proper governance and management of the process through which that innovation is achieved. This is because the real potential of any ground-breaking activity can only be realized if it is practically manifested in the best way possible, or in other words, the most value is extracted from it.
The text emphasizes that while idea generation is a crucial step in innovation, it is just one part of a whole process. Referred to as the value chain innovation, there are three main stages: idea generation, idea selection & testing, and idea diffusion. The article helps us understand that organizations must excel in all three steps to be successful in innovation. Nowadays, companies focusing excessively on idea generation without recognizing innovation as a systematic process can cause a problem in the process of innovation. Indeed, to innovate, companies need money, resources but also people to develop the initial idea. The text proposes a shift in perceiving innovation as a step-by-step process rather than a concept in itself. Also, it distinguishes between invention (creation of ideas) and innovation (extracting value from ideas), highlighting the importance of understanding innovation as a systematic approach. The text finally explains the difference between invention and innovation with the example of patent. Indeed, patents are useful to protect an invention a company created, in contrast to innovation. Patents are an attractive data source for companies because of the ease of access. It can thus be said that patents are an indicator of invention rather than innovation.
This implies that companies and their managers should consciously try to embed innovation as a process in their organizational structure. Ideally, it would start from the right governance from company executives where the top-level management has a regular oversight on their innovation activities and seeks to invest beyond just idea generation. This entails having the right people and resources to execute all the steps in the innovation value chain. Additionally, it would also necessitate that manager have a well-defined framework in terms of controlling the outcome of innovation activities, such as budget, the scope of the activity, and the financial goals that the activity seeks to achieve. Another thing to be wary about are the key stakeholders such as suppliers and other partners who would eventually have to adjust their deliverables in accordance with the innovation undertaken by the company in question. Lastly, what it means for the front-line employees is to make sure that their activities should be aligned with the organization’s vision as a whole and that their research work must pay great attention to how they can effectively and efficiently execute the new idea in question, not just making the idea as innovative as possible.
In conclusion, the article underscores one main premise: idea management is more important than idea generation. Innovation can be most improved when the execution of ideas is done in a way that it maximizes value and impact across the innovation value chain. The relevant personnel should differentiate between idea generation/invention and innovation.
Further references
Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453‑460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011
Khilji, S. E., Mroczkowski, T., & Bernstein, B. (2006). From Invention to Innovation : Toward developing an Integrated innovation model for biotech firms*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 528‑540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00222.x
Show less(Article) Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, 80, 137-144
Read more
“Creativity is not enough” by Ted Levitt
We chose this article “Creativity is not enough” by Ted Levitt as the article for our first workshop in the Innovation Management course. This article is mainly about the fundamental difference between ideation and innovation and emphasises the importance of the implementation of the idea in the organisation rather than the creation of the idea itself. The managerial implications behind these ideas are multiple, such as firstly that managers should demand tangible plans and actions behind the ideas proposed by employees. Secondly, managers would be asked to hire people who possess the skills to turn an idea into an action. To do this, a test of the implementation of a creative idea could be asked at the interview.
Let us now turn to the limitations of this article, which means the cases in which the theory of this article does not apply. Firstly, there are sectors that need this creativity more than others and could reward it more. Not all sectors welcome creativity in the same way. And secondly for us the implementation of an idea also depends on the size of an organisation, an idea will be implemented much faster in a one man shop than in a multinational. However, this limitation is quite obvious, as a small company has fewer employees so automatically the idea will be implemented faster than in a large company. This second limitation is not really a limitation at all.
Finally we propose three other sources of information on this subject, the first is the article “How Can Creative Ideas Be Implemented? The Roles of Leader Performance-Prove Goal Orientation and Boundary-Spanning Strategy” and informs us that in general decision makers are biased against extremeley creative ideas or sometimes cannot recognize creative ideas at all. Then we propose a second article, “More capable, more innovative? An empirical inquiry into the effects of dynamic managerial capabilities on digital firms’ innovativeness” which highlights the complete lack of understanding of the managerial capabilities needed for innovation in today’s digital economy. And finally we have a ted talk by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who explains that the creativity of employees is sometimes only a means for them to gain the attention of decision makers, and therefore not really in the will to innovate the organisation.
Further Sources References:
1) Xiaoqian Qu & Xinmei Liu (2021) How Can Creative Ideas Be Implemented? The Roles of Leader Performance-Prove Goal Orientation and Boundary-Spanning Strategy, Creativity Research Journal, 33:4, 411-423, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2021.1943135
2) Heubeck, T. and Meckl, R. (2022), “More capable, more innovative? An empirical inquiry into the effects of dynamic managerial capabilities on digital firms’ innovativeness”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 892-915.
3) TED. (2019, september 12). How craving attention makes you less creative | Joseph Gordon-Levitt [Video]. Youtube.
Wei-Ken, H., & Lin-Lin, C. (2012). Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design
Read more
Firstly, we summarized the key points of our paper. The question posed in the paper is
“How much do consumers value novelty in product design?” and, in order to define the
relationship between novelty and aesthetic preference, a study on chair product design was
conducted. The results show that the relationship between these two parameters is an
inverted-U curve. This means that, instead of maximizing novelty, a moderate level thereof
leads to the highest level of aesthetic preference. Overall, three dimensions of aesthetic
preference were defined: trendiness, complexity and emotion, and all of these proved to
have a positive, linear relationship with novelty. What was striking, however, was the fact
that trendiness has the highest influence on novelty.
Secondly, we have identified two mains implications for managers to better shape their
firm’s strategy. The first implication regards the inverted-U curve relationship between
product aesthetic and novelty. Indeed, there is a threshold to innovation in design: people
prefer a balance between typicality and novelty. Therefore, we advise managers to conduct
consumer surveys regarding the firm’s new designs, as there is a very thin line which should
not be crossed. The second implication is closely linked to trendiness. Indeed, what is
perceived as novel and beautiful depends greatly on what is fashionable at the moment.
Therefore, we would recommend managers to set up teams in charge of analysing
consumers’ current trendiness perception.
Thirdly, we exposed the limitations of the conclusion reached through this paper. Indeed,
managers should first identify the decision making factors in their industry, because the
aesthetic curve does not account for more traditional sector where artisanal “savoir-faire” is
valued. Then, it is important to keep in mind that customers rank their preference relatively
to the alternatives available on the market. Managers must be aware of how their product
will be perceived compared to their competitors. Also the primary function of a good should
not be forgotten; for example, with chairs, comfort is a mental association unconsciously
made when thinking about this particular product.
Lastly, we focused our attention on the insights provided by two additional papers . The first
one (1) moved from the idea that a preference for typicality over novelty may depend on
the risk associated with the choice. Yet, the authors found no statistical evidence supporting
the argument, when creating pressure on the participants in the survey. The second paper
(2) explains the reason why, in similar studies different results emerged concerning the
impact of novelty on aesthetic preferences. The issue here is the idea of novelty that the
participants have, since it is connected to the broader conception of “newness”. As the
study shows, there are four dimensions of newness, some of which – uniqueness, for
instance – have a negative effect on the perception of the product.
Our paper links the concept of novelty to innovation and shows that firms do not have to
present the most unique or innovative product to enter the market and to success. They
need to adapt to their target customers and take their preferences into account.
Appendix :
(1) Thurgood, C. et al (n.d.). The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure
for product design: influences on safety and risks.
(2) Akiike, A., Katsumata, S. (n.d.). The multidimensionality of design newness: an empirical
survey of product appearance and preference.
Francis, D., Bessant, J., & Hobday, M. (2003). Managing radical organisational transformation. Management Decision. 41(1), 18-31
Read more
This article is about big transformations in companies, akin to a metaphorical “big bang” occurring within the organization. It talks about the concept of a winning formula, representing the ‘perfect’ idea for a company—comprising elements such as a good idea, a suitable market, and an optimal price, among other factors.
The article proceeds to highlight the complexity involved in attaining this objective, emphasizing that the most difficult challenge lies not in identifying the idea itself, as many companies believe, but rather in navigating the steps required to achieve it.
Moreover, the article points out that companies frequently struggle with adapting quickly, often missing the jump during the transformation process.
Many organisational and managerial competencies can be identified to undertake a successful radical transformation in our article, but we decided to highlight 3 of those.
The first competence is about recognising the challenge. Indeed some companies may face some difficulties in approaching the issue and it can be explained by some “pre-action barriers”. These barriers may involve that people in the organisation don’t accept that their ways of doing business have become outdated, for instance, and they seek to avoid the reality that the world has changed and that they haven’t.
Getting past these barriers can be difficult but the main objective of the top management group is to recognise the scope and scale of the challenges that the organisation faces. They have to realise that this radical change is essential and they need to believe that it can be achieved.
The second competence is to require extensive innovation. Managers should “think out of the box” to create new values for their customers. To achieve this, managers should have an internal entrepreneurship and create a new envelope within which product and process innovations can be explored. They should also provide the necessary resources and support to their company to make this change possible.
The last one is about installing a strong leadership in the firm. Although strong leadership is difficult to define and establish, it is key to managing paradoxes and adapting to various situations. Leadership processes can be divided into “hard” characteristics and “soft” characteristics. For example, leaders need sometimes to be open-minded listeners and at other times, stop listening and make decisive decisions.
We discovered three main limitations in the article. The first limitation is technological evolution. For instance, a new winning formula of a company may be subject to change as technology advances.
The second limitation concerns the change of the customer needs over time, emphasizing the crucial need for constant adaptation of the company to prevent the obsolescence of the products or services offered.
The third limitation addresses the challenges that may arise when the existing direction fails to totally understand or is resistant to the transformation, that’s the reason why effective communication within the company is essential.
To go deeper in our reflections, we have chosen two additional sources which are relevant because they go even further than the subject already presented in our article.
1) Employees Are Losing Patience with Change Initiatives by Cian O Morain and Peter Aykens May 09, 2023.
It informs us about the difficulties that employees face during a change in an enterprise. What’s interesting here is that we go deeper in one of the limitations of the transformation of a company. So, we learn that while more change is coming, the willingness of the employee to support a transformation decreases year after year.
2) Green windows of opportunity: latecomer development in the age of transformation toward sustainability: Rasmus Lema, Xiaolan Fu, Roberta Rabellotti Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 29, Issue 5, October 2020, Pages 1193–1209, https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtaa044 Published: 13 February 2021
Show lessThe second article shares details about the global green transformation, and which are the opportunities of the company here. We find this article relevant because we learn how enterprise can transform itself while taking into account a world in transition from an ecological point of view. It’s like we have two transformations which occur at the same time, and which are interdependent.