Outcome or Process?
"Innovation is more of an outcome than it is a process." Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I agree. By thoroughly mapping the job a customer is trying to get done, a company can discover opportunities for breakthrough products and services. You innovate by looking at the desired outcome of each step, not the process currently used.
Job Mapping breaks down the task the customer wants done into a series of discrete process steps. This provides the company a complete view of all the points at which a customer might desire more help from a product or service.
Hello Ashley,
Good answer. I would also suggest that costs be a consideration. Sometimes when you map a job in that level of detail it can become apparent that although a good idea, the cost-benefit will not support moving ahead.
Thank you for you participation and your thoughtful post.
Ron Obstfeld
I'm probably doing to be a bit of a wordsmith here, and I'll preface the comments by saying that my doctoral studies were in this area (I also teach the subject at the graduate level and consult with companies in the area of stimulating innovation and corporate entrepreneurship), but I believe you have to define innovation as a process. Why? Because innovation is creativity put into action. Innovating is a verb, which implies a process.
The result of this process (e.g. a great product or customer offering) is an outcome. Reading the materials, however, I can see where one would come to the logical conclusion that it's an outcome; and I believe the good folks at Harvard who designed the course would like us to arrive at that conclusion. However, I don't believe it's an accurate reflection of the scholarly findings in this field.
While the course designers are suggesting there is a linear relationship between the steps suggested and an innovative outcome, there is evidence to suggest that this is not how innovators think. When we look at the latest findings into the entrepreneurial mind, for example, there is a lot of great work being done at the University of Virginia on the topic of Effectuation.
Effectuation theorists state that an entrepreneur has the desired outcome in his/her mind, then uses a very fluid and unstructured approach to get there. Essentially, they don't care how they get there...so long as they get there. The process of getting there is innovation. Intrapreneurship literature finds the same approach holds true. The path anticipated is almost never the path taken. Therefore, innovation is the adaptive process taken to overcome barriers and obstacles in pursuit of an outcome.
Thanks,
Matt
Matthew,
Thank you for your comments and insights.Most people require a structured - linear approach at the beginning if the innovation "process". Once engaged and using the process...the natural evolution is to a more natural fluid and unstructured approach. Great insight....thank you.
Ron Obstfeld
I agree that Innovation is more of an outcome than it is a process. Today's academic libraries allow competition besides services, cost-effective information providers and others challenges. In light of this reality, it is imperative for libraries to seek means to ensure that their services meet and preferably exceed user expectations. Innovations are the alternative for libraries to make a lot of contribution to student learning. The Innovations are more than an outcome is a process for which the traditional quantitative measurement of library collections is no longer appropriate, nor applicable, to the client needs. Librarians and faculty achieve greater insight into whether students are learning and applying the critical thinking skills necessary for the learning outcomes.
Neida Solivan
I agree because if you get wrapped up in the process of a vision it can hinder the outcome. The innovation is the desired results of a concept or idea. By focusing on the process of an idea in it's earliest stages we restrict our vision of "the bigger picture." It's best to work "backward" when implementing one's vision. First thinking what your desired or best results would look like or entail, having that "picture" as your focus and then eliminating restrictions through the process.
I disagree. While the outcome is the end result, to implement innovation involves a strategic approach. In order to implement your creative ideas, you need to think carefully about the steps needed along the way in order to achieve the outcome you desire. While most would like to implement a change with a "make it happen" attitude, the reality is much different. People are cautious and resistant to change, and while your idea may benefit them in the long run, the "sell" piece of the process is critical to its acceptance, survival and implementation.
Once you "sell" your peers and supporters on the idea, their buy in will help not only keep it alive, but help your idea grow. So, as I see it, innovation is a process that will involve change and openess to ideas in order for it to produce the desired outcome.
Steve,
I would suggest although your response is the ideal environment and a practical sustaining solution, there are also situations that require a more dramatic and immediate response. This may be especially true when fast change is required. Mergers, leadership changes and business downturns are just a few examples.
Ron Obstfeld
I do not believe innovation is more an outcome then a process but that innovation is many steps to the outcome. Yes the outcome is important yet without proper development through excellent invisioning, and concrete steps in production, alignment with the compaining views and philosophy and enthusiatic and compelling promotion, a quality and successful outcome will not occur.
I like this question.
Honestly, I don’t think its either. Innovation isn’t a process because that would mean we could devise systems to magically create innovative ideas and their design. I have yet to find one – if I did, it’d be pretty expensive. And, I'd patent it as to retire.
Also, vision really isn’t an outcome since what we envision rarely appears out of a process or effort. Think about it – when was the last time some complex vision manifested exactly as you wanted? It’s pretty rare. So I have to discount that too.
I see innovation as an embodied lens through which you view resources (human and otherwise) as to complete a need. To me, it’s the context we place upon a system as to recast all its actors and resources into a new meaning as to tackle a need. So, in a sense, I view innovation as an abstract organizing principle allowing transformation of a group.
But, eh, maybe that’s a little too left field :)
Steve
Steven,
Interesting take on the question. I would agree with you that innovation is seen through a personal lens based upon an individual's knowledge and experience....and also the ability to use these to take action.
Ron Obstfeld
This is a tough one -- good question though. It really digs into the philosophical assumption of the topic.
At first I thought I disagreed with this on a technicality, because to Matthew's point, "innovate" is a verb, and
However, I agree with this statement philosophically in that the desired outcome is at the heart of innovation - from beginning to end of any "process" to achieve it. And without the desired outcome, has innovation actually even been accomplished? I'd say no.
And even on a technical level, while the word "innovate" may be a verb, the word innovation is a noun and refers to the use of a better method, i.e. outcome.
