The wrong Innovation!!!

How often do we come across instances where we define "Innovation" to our audience?

I generally describe Innovation as a process by which a domain, a product, or a service is restructured and upgraded by applying new processes, introducing new techniques, implementing new services, or establishing successful ideas to create and deliver tangible values.

To quote an instance, I was in a session a few days earlier where I had a question on misconceptions about Innovation as strategy and it helped me to re-think the fact on how important it for us is to know the correct definition and understanding of Innovation.

Innovation is one of the most overused buzzwords in the current corporate landscape. I know many people who love to hate this word. In most of my interactions, many business leaders have agreed that Innovation is important, but none can pinpoint one method by which we can derive the outcome of this. We see different articles arguing that innovation is an overused term, and there is nothing much that can be achieved through this.

In this write-up, I will attempt to highlight the misleading assumption(s) on Innovation, and I will negate them one by one based on my experiences, learnings, and readings: 

• First statement: Innovation is all about path-breaking technology - No, Innovation is not all about technology. In my views, it happens because in this digital era where a lot of things have been written and spoken about several technologies in such a way that they are deemed to be innovative, the advertisement of them being the torchbearer of Innovation can be true to some extent but only technology can bring innovation, I negate this. The understanding of technology, how to implement it to achieve output and the way of thinking collectively brings innovation
• Second Statement: We can achieve Innovation individually or it should be performed only by few people - Some organizations believe that Innovation is the responsibility of solely one department or few job roles. I agreed to this to an extent, but Innovation cannot be limited to a definite set of people. Often innovation happens on a field or a shop floor. It can be a result of the efforts of anyone person within your organization or the efforts of a group of people who work together to make important changes
• Third Statement: Innovation cannot be learned over a period- If you want to negate this, read- It's Logical by Kaustubh Dhargalkar. If you ask me personally, can Innovation be taught? My immediate response would be, Yes. The methodology and approach might be time-consuming, but with sheer determination, the right pedagogy, and frameworks, Innovation can be taught.  Hal Gregersen, senior affiliate professor of leadership at INSEAD and co-author of "The Innovator's DNA," believes that there are five key skills that disruptive innovators possess: the cognitive skill of associating and the behavioral skills of questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting. And yes, all of us can learn to flex these innovator's muscles. He along with his co-author believes that roughly two-thirds of the skills it takes to innovate can be learned. They point to historical research findings that concluded 25-40% of human innovation stems from genetics as evidence.'
• Fourth Statement: We must succeed in every attempt- "The fastest way to succeed," IBM's Thomas Watson, Sr., once said, "is to double your failure rate." The growing acceptance of failure is changing the way companies approach innovation. Some build exit strategies into their projects to ensure that doomed efforts do not drag on indefinitely. Others, like the credit card company Capital One, continually conduct large numbers of market experiments knowing that while most of their tests will not pay off, even the failures will provide valuable insights into the customer preferences.  Now, let us ask again -- what good can come out of a failure? Failure is an important, perhaps even crucial, ingredient for success. The primary difference between successful innovators and those who are not is the ability to fail and to leverage that failure into a learning tool for eventual success.
• Fifth Statement: It needs a huge budget-To start thinking on the lines of innovation, all we need is structured thinking. It does not have to cost anything at all. Yes, to convert an idea into a prototype or to test it, we might need monetary support but with this, we should not imply that we need surplus budgets to try the innovation. Sometimes if the business cannot afford to innovate through new technological systems or expensive marketing strategies, try innovating with changes in the management structure, changes in the tone of your branding and content, and even changes in the way sales reps talk to the prospects.
• Biggest Misconception: We can only innovate Products; services cannot be innovated- Services, like products, have a shelf life. After all, customer demand evolves, service expectations change, and technological advances constantly bring new possibilities. Services, therefore, should be periodically examined and refreshed, just as products are.  The nature of services and the pace of change have shifted dramatically in recent years and mastering the traditional aspects of service delivery will no longer be enough. Many companies think of R&D as exclusively for product development. Service innovation is a type of open innovation gaining prominence in recent times. This type of innovation responds to increased customer input, interactivity, and specialization; is multidimensional, and includes strategic and productive developments.