The innovation gene

I have been focusing a while on specific topics of my interest for my articles. Today, I want to abstract out at a meta-physical level and because the company, Innotomy, is about science of exploring innovations, let us focus on innovation.

A few questions we should explore to get a better understanding are:

1. What is innovation?
2. Why is innovation important?
3. What traits should the innovation gene have, if there is one? What qualities innovators possess to make them different from the rest?
4. Is this innovation gene present in all homo sapiens?

What is Innovation? It is loosely defined as an act in which the thought process is modified for either doing something totally new or for doing new things that are more useful. An important aspect of the definition stems from comparison of innovation with invention. Invention is about new ideas whereas innovation is about putting these ideas into practise. Invention necessarily has to be brand new and unique, but an innovation need not always be unique. Unique it need not be, but it must be sufficiently and substantially different to be innovative.

Arguably the most important invention of the 20th century is attributed to John Bardeen, William Shockley and walter Brattain who invented the transistor in 1947. In the same century in 1906, Lee De Forest invented the vacuum tube triode. But transistor was far superior to the vacuum tube. That is not the topic of discussion. But both of them were great inventions. These had a cascading effect then on, where inventions of personal computers, then Internet, then the web and now social networking sites such as Twitter, MySpace and Facebook are all inventions. When Subway or McDonalds use Twitter or the Internet to advertise and connect with consumers in new ways to increase their customer base, it is innovations. So inventions are very unique and rare but in the time line, usually have a series of innovations that benefit either the individuals, or businesses, or the community, or the society at large.

The train ticketing systems in the western world is another example. While the system itself may be inventive in nature, its usage can be innovative. While in Europe and the US, the gates are usually closed and they open after ticket is swiped, whereas in Japan, gates are always open, but they close when a ticket is not swiped. This is due to the fact that density of people entering the gates in Japan is very high compared to those in Europe and the US. This is a simple alteration to the invetion to suit your geographical needs. This qualifies as an innovation, because it is new, it is different and it puts into practise a system that benefits many!

The examples are varied and many. The point is hopefully clear that inventions are innovations are different and understanding that difference is key to understanding innovations. Why are they important? History is replete with examples of continuous innovations and because they bring a significant difference in quality of life, they are naturally sought after. The impact of globalisation, migration, technology and knowledge revolutions make it imperative for individuals and businesses to continue to focus on innovations that can bring about some niche area for them to be more competitive. Research shows that competition combined with strong demand is a major driver of innovation. Intensity of competition is the determinant of innovation and productivity. Innovation, besides products and services, also includes new processes, new business systems and new methods of management, which have a significant impact on productivity and growth.

We have thus far talked about what is innovation and why it is important? But who are the people behind innovations? While there can be countably few Newtons and Einsteins who were primarily inventors, there can be many innovators. In fact, I would like to argue that all of us can be innovators. But what does it take to become an innovator? THere are some qualities. What are they? Is there such a thing called the innovation gene, that brings these qualities to people? The answers may lie in what is generally described as disruptive innovation.

Disruptive innovation, as coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves ‘up market’, eventually displacing established competitors. An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill. At INSEAD in France, Hal Gregersen, has published interesting results of a study he and his team conducted over last decade. He says, to be innovative, one should possess the following skills.

1. Associating - creative people 'connect the dots', many times leading to unexpected connections
   
2. Observing - you must be a very keen observer
   
3. Experimenting - one may not know the solution, it is important to keep trying. call it trial and error or call it an experimenter.
   
4. Questioning - observations and associations can be rationalized through questioning. No questions may not lead you much further on the road of innovation
   
5. Networking - This is not social networking that can land one a better job, but as Gregersen puts it, "Innovators are intentional about finding diverse people who are just the opposites of who they are, that they talk to, to get ideas that seriously challenge their own".

It is not required to be great in all of these traits to be a good innovator. But it is imporant to exercise the ones you are better at. According to Gregersen, Steve Jobs is good at associating, Scott cook of Intuit was good at observing whereas Jeff Bezos of Amazon was an experimenter.

So that is the innovation gene. It is present in all human beings. All of us are capable of associating, observing, experimenting, questioning and networking. It means all of us can be innovators but all of us obviously are not. Why is so? It is because it is not easy for adults to practise all of innovation practises. Trying all of them together may be very counter-intuitive. It is because of the human conditioning over the years. The inventors are their prime best in their late 20s.

That is why it is often said, that in the absence of this conditioning, children are the best innovators. My daughter every now or then comes with a lateral, out of the box approach to simple day-to-day problems. It is not that she is thinking out-of-the-box, it is just that we are so completely boxed. So please grow up and be a child again !