More On Differences Between Creativity & Innovation
Renee ... thanks for continuing this conversation. I agree ... creativity is more than idea fluency and innovation is more than project management. While some people dismiss this as "semantics," I think it's important to understand the terms and the relationship between them ... at least for those of us who are trying to advance the discipline of innovation. As we developed, reworked and reworked again the InnovationDNA over the years, we realized that creativity is a piece of innovation (using a life/human body metaphor, I think of it as the brain of innovation), critical, but only one of several critical elements -- the others being:
- Challenge (what we're trying to change or accomplish -- the "pull"),
- Customer Focus (we have to be creating value for someone -- the "push"),
- Creativity (generating and sharing ideas is everyone's job -- "the brain")
- Communication (the flow of information and ideas is the "lifeblood"),
- Collaboration (innovation is only done by people working together -- the "heart"),
- Completion (implementing the new ideas -- the "muscle"),
- Contemplation (learning and sharing lessons leads to ever higher competency -- the "ladder"),
- Culture (the playing field of innovation) includes:
- Leadership (sees the possibilities and positions the team for action -- the role model)
- People (diverse groups of radically empowered people innovate -- the source of innovation)
- Basic Values (trust and respect define and distinguish an innovation organization -- the backbone)
- Innovation Values (certain values stoke the fires that make the impossible possible -- the spark)
- Context (innovation is shaped by interactions with the world)
A recent Harvard alert stated that 70% of all business initiatives fail. That is a horrifying thought that plays out in human terms as well as bottom line terms -- lost jobs, stress, untapped or misused skills and talents, and lost opportunities to improve our organizations and the world.
I think a huge part of this high level of failure is not understanding the underlying principles of all change initiatives. Our culture is so focused on doing that we jump into projects and initiatives without understanding the ramifications of our actions. We look for "best practices" that we can replicate rather than understanding the principles and then thinking about how we can forward the principles within the unique environment of each organization. Then, six months later when we don't have the results we wanted, we brush our hands together and say, "Well, we tried innovation (or quality, or continuous improvement, or ...) and that didn't work." If we understood the principles, we would know that the problem wasn't the principle, it was the implementation and we could keep moving forward in our own way toward the ideal of the principle.
Clay Christensen talked in the same vein recently in a Harvard teleconference about the importance of sound theories. It's easy for writers in this area to study a few companies and synthesize a few practices into a "best practice" or theory. One best practice does not make a theory or a principle.
And I'm sure I've gone on too long about this. It's a bit of a hot button! [Corante: IdeaFlow]
This happened at 1:42:53 AM or
|
|
Weblog
