Let me explain a bit about the fence.

My dilemma (in considering which phrases to use when talking and encouraging debate on the subject in question) arises from a need to clearly articulate but also attract people to ideas, when we discuss change, evolution and innovation.

I recall reading an article from Harvard about a year ago where somebody quite famous (to some people at least) suggested for debate amongst his peers that “the future belongs to those who truly create (or create truly?) new things”.

His point was that innovation and being inventive are different things; or that was at least what I took from his point? I recall feelng that the suggestion was of the historic proof of the importance of real tangible innovation and it’s importance to mankind in truly inspirational and important ways, relative to our growth, prosperity and expansion/evolution of other things (mankind, etc ., etc., ).

He defined the difference being that innovation was something that had something brought into real use, that delivered it’s anticipated benefits (whatever they may be) and had never existed before. That is it was not simply, however impressive, an improvement on what had been existed before. So innovation was the first combustion engine, the first railway locomotive, the first lightbulb, telephone, television, rocket propelled transport, first Computer, etc., etc. And went on to contrast this to being inventive and creative and evolving things for the better (in one or more ways).

I liked this, and it’s suggestion that one can be inventive, creative, etc., but that there was a place to still use the word innovation; it was just different from these other things.

So my dilemma comes from the fact that we want to promote change and growth (business models, useful technology, problem solving solutions, global growth, etc) and we want to be clear in our meaning BUT….. how to do that when not everybody grasps the perhaps subtle meaning deltas.

After reading the article and looking at what my team and I largely do, I commited to start to try to apply the word “innovation” only if we were proposing to do something for the first time (in our knowledge) and to use words like Inventive, Progressive, Evolutionary (or even inventive evolution, which I personally like) for all the other things, which whilst progressive and challenging boundaries were not infact something brand new.

So in summary (he finally go to I hear you say!) I kind of agree with you, but highlight that the challenge arises from having half the choir enlightened and half in the dark when you only have one 10 minute slot to pitch your case!

I sometimse find myself pitching ideas/suggestions to my leadership/clients under the badge of “innovation” because I want to get their attention to the “newness” of the suggestion in the short time I have, when really I know it’s not “innovation” but rather “inventive evolution”.

I agree though that the word is over-used, and I understand why and the problems that can present. I also believe it’s over-use will fall away after the latest buzzes driving it’s use in our industry at least, become the norm (e.g. Web2.0, SOA, SaaS, MDA, to name but a few TLA’s!).

Karl