Innovation is disruptive otherwise it is not innovation
By Tom Foremski - February 17, 2006
I sparked an interesting discussion on innovation in a response to Geoffrey Moore's recent column in Sandhill.com. Please take a look at the discussion here on Mr Moore's site, and also at AlwaysOn.
And my apologies for not being in the thick of it, I've been involved in the "PR hand basket to hell" discussions the past couple of weeks, and also running around trying to get more stories and interviews for SVW.
However, I stick to my point which is that the term innovation must have within its meaning the quality of being disruptive. Innovation occurs when companies or individuals are forced to adopt a process because of the overwhelming economic value it creates and to ignore it would make it impossible to survive.
Just because the term innovation is trendy and is used by large companies such as HP or Microsoft, does not mean that they use it correctly.
I agree totally with Mr Moore when he says large enterprises have an interest in maintaining the status quo. It is called protecting your business model. And they will rail and flail against any innovation that threatens that status quo.
And just because large enterprises say they are innovative does not mean that they are. Take Microsoft as a case in point. Microsoft executives use the "i" word in every other sentence as if saying it often enough will make it true.
Let's get back to the business and culture of innovation--this is a startup world here in Silicon Valley. If you are a startup you have big dreams and you have dreams of disrupting the world--so let's not try to reduce the power of the term innovation. It is the life blood of our world.
But hey, the big enterprises can claim to be innovative--it really doesn't matter because the new "dotcoms" will eat their lunch--this time around :-)
« Adapt or die--the choice facing the open source movement | Main | This and that: VCs swarm open source conference; Consumers can claim Linux code; Wiki enthusiast told to slow down; Sushi shows Sun is back; Edelman is aggregating the top PR bloggers »
February 17, 2006 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Disruptive | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Tech Awards For Benefiting Humanity
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- SNCR Research: Social Media IS Influencing Business Decisions
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
- MediaWatch Analysis Part II: Google Has More To Lose Than Murdoch
- MediaWatch Analysis: Murdoch Will Negotiate Payment For Access To Basket Of Content With GOOG et al
- WeekendWatcher: The Sheer Number Of Things Will Devalue Them
- ChipWatch - Where Will The Next Generation Of Engineers Come From?
- Public Healthcare Could Cut Startup Costs And Help Spur Innovation
- Is GOOG's $750m AdMob Buy Strategic Or Dumb? An alternate view...
Comments (3)
Tom,
You appear to have missed a key part of Moore's framing of innovation. His suggestion that there are numerous innovation vectors is a truly new (umm, innovative?) idea. The idea that it is possible for an incumbent to turn the tables on competitors, including disrupting startups is pretty exciting and Moore backs up is argument quite well.
Think Different Tom.
Cheers,
Doug
Posted: February 17, 2006 3:31 PM
absolutely, don't mix up innovation and corporate killjoy !
Posted: February 18, 2006 11:42 AM
Ray, yes, I agree that there are numerous forms of innvation--that is not the issue. It is the quality of the innovation that I belive has to be disruptive otherwise it is merely incremental.
A startup will not get funding, or recruit an inspired team for a ten or twnety percent improvement in the efficiency of some business process. Is that innovation?
Posted: February 21, 2006 9:25 PM