Can innovation and improvisation co-exist in a meaningful way and also as a turbo charger for results? Yes, but the mechanism s not what you might think. With the innovation game ( and you may notice which sounds like "The Imitation Game" ) the notion of the expected 7 step process to innovation is often much preferred as a systematic approach rather than any notion of the "ah ha" moment that can come at any time during the creation process. More than likely, the effect of such X step processes no matter how well intended often creates the backbone for incrementalism inside an organization and certainly within an innovation process. Therefore within the context of the down beat set by an organizations efforts to control and shepard the innovation process, improvisational techniques allow for organizational continuity to occur without the fully break the melody focus that any good bridge in modern R&B creates.
In Organizational Improvisation: From the Constraint of Strict Tempo to the Power of the Avant-Garde we see the effects of Ad-hoc ( the ah ha process ); Covert ( clandestine ); Provocative ( destabilize war based ); and Managed ( Created Spaces ) efforts to deal possible zeitgeist of efforts that an organization can take to play along with the innovation game in the context of other similar organizations. Many of iGNITIATE's clients also report this as a key factor in increasing innovation capabilities as it is, this effort and the corresponding economics concerns itself with the battlefield of competition for dominance rather than the co-existence sometimes even within an organization, the terms used are naturally economic and position based. When focused on as a R&D effort complete with IP protection efforts and individual ownership / co-ownership mechanisms innovation improvisation takes on a whole new set of capabilities that can transform organizations.
As innovators aren't meant to confirm, they are meant to converge, in facing the innovation games most complex foe, ROI, the reality is numbers don't lie. The issue is that the numbers related to what is true efficacy cannot be evaluated without context. However efficiency is not all monetary but unfortunately that is what the basis of innovation focuses on. Innovation by it's original definition by Joseph Schumpeter is 100% rooted in the world of economics. Schumpeter tried to start a bank, failed, was an economist / finance minister, failed, had nervous breakdowns several times over the course of his life, almost died and pushed himself and his investors with theories of cyclicity - when to buy, how to buy, when to sell, how to sell as a mechanism of how to increase shareholder value. While accurate in the race of ROI, in combination with the notions of how innovation is effected by a gold monetary standard , fiat monetary standard etc., every focus was economic and policy based. This however is not the only basis for innovation and certainly not to be evaluated in isolation. Why? Because micro ( non-societal based innovation efficacy ) ate a firm level is executed upon by industrious individuals regardless of external forces. Innovators simply do not stop just because a market says it is time or not time to launch.
In The Role of Dedicated Innovation Functions for Innovation Process Control and Performance we see a quite surprising outcome: informal control mechanisms ( when helping innovation along inside an existing organization ) has a positive effect on innovation activity ( more experimentation is taking place & people are trying new things ) and innovation performance ( more breakthroughs are being utilized ) out in the filed however with a formal control mechanism having significant positive effect on innovation performance ( usability in the field ) does mean continues innovation activity will take place. With the implementation of a dedicated innovation function ( an innovation office, and staff ) to monetize "new" efforts do in fact have a positive effect on both control mechanisms ( the people sheparding new efforts ) and innovation activity ( people in the field trying, trying, trying, new things ) but then comes the unexpected.
Contrary to expectations, an innovation ( office, and staff ) function’s direct effect on innovation performance is negative which is not surprising for one simple reason: it's infancy, innovation, IS invention and in it's adolescence morphs ( due to conformity to the existing organism capabiliteis ) to new set of environmental factors not previously there eg. the ever famous iPod whose demanded use of DRM as a legal framework for ownership ( from record companies ) which once in place cemented the adoption of new, previous unacceptable design creativity eg. the selection wheel interface. Had the typical model of innovation ( economics over experimentation ) taken place, the entire design effort ( of new interfaces, new modalities for digital audio playback use ) may have been thrown out: no one would have seen the value in the experimentation for the purpose of innovation past a few drawings on paper. Or would it?
Innovation within the context of formal product development is often ascribed to incrementalism and thus new product development efforts. Innovation within the context of informal and often ego based experimentalism becomes the key to rule breaker mentalities where when convergence occurs at a later time allows for breakthroughs that force change upon an organism faster than incremental adoption.
###
Intuition ( Innovation ) Means Exploration Success Or Investigation Enumeration ? Both. But you better be prepared for it.
When it comes to innovation, the reality is that dominance requires exploitation. Breakthroughs however do not necessarily align with this capability, at least in the "soft" sense. How can a balance be struck internally in your organization and in an individual so that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater ? Here is how.
One of the key takeaways from The Role of Intuition and Deliberation for Exploration and Exploitation Success is that "exploration [ which is ] strongly related to intuitive decision making draws on both intuitive and deliberate decision making" however exploitation does not. Does this directly impact the perceived calm and persistence of your organizations ethos ? Yes. Does this coincide with frogs in boiling pots of water before they become cuisses de grenouilles? And more importantly can this be reversed ? Can intuitive decision-making style have a negative effect on exploitative success? Apparently observation is not positively correlated with deliberate decision-making and thus exploitative success. Why?
Essentially you can't leave it only to the bravest or most farsighted individuals for their decisions to influence long term success solely based on intuition. Organizations and organisms pay for long term successes to be assured just like droves of 2nd wave colonizers paid handsomely for accurate maps to their enterprising destinations. When it comes to discovery, intuition and innovation via exploratory success AND investigative enumeration is the surest way to increase breakthrough products and services.
