 Commentary by Ellen Domb Subscribe via Email or RSS |  Biography |
June 2, 2010
|
 | 
|
Continuous Innovation Enables Breakthrough |
|
|
Rosabeth Moss Kanter (well-known management author and Harvard professor) presents her observations and challenges to CEOs who are embracing innovation during the recovery in the article "Block-by-Blockbuster Innovation" in the May 2010 Harvard Business Review. See http://hbr.org/2010/05/column-block-by-blockbuster-innovation/ar/1 I agree with many of her points, but I also noticed that with a bit of TRIZ orientation, much of what she says would be a lot stronger--they would stand as part of the database on human innovation that is the foundation of TRIZ, rather than as the observations of one person (although she's a very well-qualified observer.) Prof. Kanter starts with the observation that some company leaders are ignoring risk, calling for breakthrough innovation, and even denigrating incremental innovation. She sees the positioning of continuous improvement as the opposite of breakthrough innovation as a false dichotomy, that increases the risk of innovation. I disagree with her contention that innovation must be risky, while agreeing with the other points. She is in complete agreement with the classical patterns of evolution in TRIZ, pointing out that breakthrough systems are the result of many incremental changes in product, processes, and the environment (including the customer!) that make the breakthrough possible.
|
|
Comments [2] | Permalink |
|
| Categories: Management, Strategy | |
|
|
| posted by Ananth Swaminath [ http://innovisions.wordpress.com/ ] | June 19, 2010 at 3:14 pm |
Ellen: I don't believe that Dr Kanter stated innovation must be risky. Rather, she actually went on to say that there is a disconnect within several organisations today. She believes that many organisations are of the belief that only disruptive or radical innovations (aka iPad etc) will spur growth and towards that end, these organisations do not perceive incremental innovations as a logical process and rational step in the right direction. To this she says that viewing incremental and breakthrough innovations as opposites is risky. She did not say that innovation must be risky as you seem to have alluded in your commentary. I thought I would highlight this, so readers don't get an impression that is not entirely factual. To the rest of your commentary, I agree - there are elements of TRIZ in her approach - and there are places where TRIZ can help as well. Ananth |
|
| posted by Ellen Domb [ http://www.trizpqrgroup.com ] | June 20, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
I think that it is a question of degree of emphasis, not any disagreement between us. Prof. Kanter's point was that by encouraging ONLY breakthrough innovation and discouraging incremental innovation, certain leaders were increasing the risk in their companies, because they do not have the knowledge and capacity to perform the breakthrough activities without risk. |
|
