For me, one ‘type’ of innovation that seems always to be often passed over is distinctive innovation in discussions. Why is that?

Most people work away in the trenches of incremental improvements and these outputs make up the vast substance of innovation activity.  Many working in these trenches of innovation on a daily basis would love to be part of a breakthrough but tend to find this is always ring-fenced for a few others to work upon. All they can often do is gaze over the fence or quietly accept this divide simply goes on.

I believe many who work within innovation simply do not share in this delineation of innovation activity, as it divides talent into separate teams, often pitting scarce innovation resources against each other, often in many unseen ways.  This divide of activities is often a real pity but perhaps another story for another day we can explore.

Disruptive innovation is seen, partly by the way it has its effect on us and our lives. Many of us are always happy to discuss disruptive as long as it does not have an impact on ourselves, on the receiving end.

As long as we are the ones doing the disrupting, or just wanting to show off the status as being early adopters or within the early majority of the innovation adoption curve, then we love disruption. Otherwise, it is a very uncomfortable space many are not prepared to travel to.
I would suggest most people understand incremental as the first type or basic stage of innovation, especially in larger business organizations. For me, large organizations give this incremental area far too much of a focus in their resources and efforts, to the detriment of other options which is partly due to their risk-averse cultures.

I really do think though, they miss a trick, by failing often to ramp up to breakthrough or disruptive innovation, by not focusing on building a real capacity to strive for ‘distinctive innovation’ on a more consistent, even sustaining basis.

We should move out of the incremental trap far more and not continue to reinforce it as many do. Let us name and shame the incrementalists and get them thinking more about distinctive innovation.

The missing value of distinctive

I think we miss something and it is a great big pity. Distinctive innovation is actually not just the middle ground, the passing through point towards breakthrough or disruptive but it is the inspirational point for all of us to rally around far more than we do.

Inspirational is really important, it is a great motivating point if we can all achieve far more in our identity with something distinctive than just incremental.

Whatever we work upon in innovation we should seek something distinctive as an outcome. I don’t regard the latest flavoured yoghurt, improvements to the speed of our computer processor power or a few more pixels on our I-phone as anything more than incremental. This is to keep pushing up the awareness curve to extract longer value from the brand or product. I’m looking at something that makes it stand out, to be distinctive.

A transforming point for all to all gather around

I think there is far more value in talking about this transforming type of innovation that I call distinctive. It is not a complete breakthrough, it is not something that really disrupts an industry but it enables a certain leadership status, a chance to build a reputation for your brand or service.

Distinctive innovation gives you the ability to build and lead in either design, solution resolution, improving function etc., etc. We forget to talk about this type of innovation as we move from incremental to breakthrough.

I believe there is a clear consensus-building point for all working on innovation would want to achieve, that is knowing they are delivering something distinctive. It is the new innovation neighbourhood we should all move toward and plan out. Let’s find ways to get out of the overcrowded incremental slums.

Most people can’t jump or not even be able or allowed to think about breakthrough, as that is far too often  “left to others” What they can really identify with is working on being more distinctive and less trapped in the basic, incremental mindset.

What do you think?  Would you want to be associated with something distinctive, I would.

The post We seem to pass over distinctive innovation, why? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

We often talk about simply incremental and radical, yet we do have other choices such as a more ‘distinctive’ design or one that sets out to be ‘disruptive’.

Let me offer this for thinking through on your fits on the innovation path you want to take and ‘flag’ some areas you need to consider. Each degree of innovation (or type) has considerable organization design issues to think through.

Let me explain these a little more

Degree is the scale to increase the intensity of innovation- incrementally, distinctively, radically or disruptively. Each of these ‘degrees’ have implications and aspects for the organization to consider.

Type provides the environment you are operating within. Incremental innovation is fairly predictable, it is the ‘easier’ option, and it tends to be a fairly static place to be, everything is fairly predictable; you keep refining the practice of innovation.

For distinctive you are extending your innovation into good practice, you are looking to push design, to offer something beyond the existing extension. I feel design innovation fits really well within this type.

Radical is more about learning, being alert, agile and experimental, preparing to take some risks but pushing beyond the existing boundaries, into emergent practice.

Lastly disruptive, a high-risk approach where it is very much leading-edge, self-generated, self-inflicted but offers a potentially high reward that changes existing dynamics and is often novel and experimental in how you handle this in practices.

Approach is the way you set about innovation. Incremental for the vast majority is often through a very ad hoc innovation process and not systematic in their approach in linking strategy with their innovations.

Although you could argue and argue well, that the vast majority of consumer goods companies have a very highly systematic process to churn out incremental products constantly but I don’t think this type of incremental innovation gives ‘huge’ additional growth value, it tends to maintain the ‘steady’ state.

I think the more it is systematic the more the innovation moves from a ‘incremental’ to ‘distinctive’ as it is the richness of combinations that separate the product or service.

For instance you redesign the container, you add different ingredients that are healthier, you reposition your product in brand message, you offer a more emotive attachment- this becomes more distinctive, more enduring than incremental.

Radical or disruptive is far more fluid, adaptive and constantly searching out, less reliant on a given process, more on the nature of the proposition to drive it through to translation, not on a given process or accepted methodology.

Fit deals with the space you chose to operate within. The more you chase up the degree of innovation the more you need to challenge your organization’s structure, response mechanism and adaptation.

Without going into the Cynefin framework explained here http://youtu.be/N7oz366X0-8 it has considerable value as it offers a ‘sense-making model to think through’ for you to reflect on the type of innovation and its difficulties.

Innovation is certainly complex and the Cynefin framework offers an excellent complexity model for being made more aware. It helps you to think differently and apply the necessary changed mindsets needed for these four innovation types.

Conditions are more to do with how you work. These are to a large degree the ability within the organization to adapt and how you learn. If you don’t communicate well, you don’t seek to learn from mistakes or each other the learning loops never actually happen. You need to find ways to question and re-question if you want to push the boundaries.

Where do you see your organization?

So these are my dominant design structures for firms when it comes to innovation. Can they operate across all four simultaneously – highly doubtful -especially if you have a culture, industry and leadership that stays within the incremental space or a given comfort zone.

It is really hard to unlearn this repeating pattern of innovation and attempt to move into the different degrees of radical or disruptive particularly, yet I hear so many talking about this, as a need to do but can they?

The implications of degree of innovation do have significant implications and organisational design challenges, so be warned.

The post Your dominating innovation design is? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.