Tag Archives: definition

True Grasp of Innovation

It seems there is a clear and simple understanding of innovation, that … no one can formulate. As a consequence of this dilemma, corporations pretend they offer you something innovative, but in reality that may be far from truth.

There are three simple criteria for true innovation:

  1. Innovative product must improve or open totally new experience. So in effect it can make a change.
  2. Innovative product must be useful, i.e. has clear practical purpose for customer. So it can be adopted widely.
  3. Innovative product must comply with society laws. So it can be legally manufactured and distributed (sold, advertised).

Those three are essential. Although the third one may seem obvious, it is not. Drugs, for example, would be OK with 1st and 2nd, but not with the last one.

A product where hi-tech materials are used, is not necessary innovative one, even though it is slick and shiny. Some corporations try to cheat themselves to prove otherwise. While you could, it is unlikely to convince the customer.

Also it is clear now why it is so difficult to produce an innovative product, as the first condition and the second one are rarely stick together. Sometimes in FMCG industries they are rarely meet at all. So a company may produce a product with a new fancy innovative feature they believe, that adds nothing to consumer experience, neither appears obvious of how it could be used at all.

There are false indicators and stimulus as well:

  1. Competitors do that, so you also should.
  2. You’ve spent so much money already (design, advertising, etc.) so how come it is not innovative?
  3. It is just nice! Some people find it just pure perfect.
  4. Deranged housewives focus groups results suggest that.

You cannot force adoption of innovation to get true success.