where his breakdown occured including Phil's "Rule of 18" - the typical investment cycle for "innovation" inside a firm. Oddly, and yet again, business marketing and design vocabulary become mangled.
What Phil is actually speaking about is product development and at best NPD or New Product Development cycles. In his podcast "Measuring Innovation" his metrics, models and philosophy are right from MBA and design textbooks on how to launch products. More Phil goes on to say, "metrics ... made clear during the recent earnings call were surrounding sales figures, short-term milestones that the TouchPad did not hit. The one simple metric determined an entire program's success (or failure, in this instance)." which oddly ignored all together the patent, legal and corporate ramifications leaving us to ask, now is "INNOVATION" the scapegoat.
Deisgn, Engineering, R&D, and New Product Development are all portions of AN innovation which is still defined correctly by Joseph Shumpter and recently refined by Clay Christensens's disruptive innovation models focusing on the phrase "creative disruption", which ceretainly we cannot see HP's tablet as being. The iPAD yes. The HP tablet no - regardless of corporate marketing.