Every case of innovation, imho, is unique and cannot be replicated with the stunning results case studies promise. The best you can hope for is to change your organisational structures to increase the likelihood that some sparks will fly. Unfortunately, changing the structure of the organisation is usually far from the minds of management.

Have read your blog with great interest and amusement for a while now. I really enjoy how you come at things and where you go with them. Many thanks for the perceptive and challenging thoughts and observations, keep it up! Read your latest entry about your trip to stamford and the city limits, it brought a smile as I have been there and the facade is worth a picture though in my opinion the inside experience less so…. Anyway, interesting points about innovation, though I happen to think the argument rests more on the increasingly fragile complexity of all aspects of life around us. Whether it’s the unavoidably complex reality of backward compatible technology such as anything Microsoft, or communications standards meant to reduce complexity that actually end up simply adding another layer, to the reliance on gauging precise impact and return on what used to be viewed as relatively routine operations. Kind of explains some of the mind boggling success that Google has had with its simple search engine business plan … also feeds that Christensen mantra of disruptive anything/everything (fill in the blank). Enough for now. Thanks again for the perceptive insights!

1. in the history of marketing/management-buzz after “brand” came “design” which quickly morphed into “innovation”. that is good. because it takes all potential misunderstanding out of the word design. it separates it from superficial styling and takes design where it belongs: INside the organization. INnovation.
2. at the same time INnovation kills marketing. – driven by customers that are ever more resistant to advertising promises the arrival of “brand” was in large parts already a call for companies to not only bring their merchandise nicely wrapped to the market – but to show the true colours of the corporation at the same time. – many players of course – ill-advised by buzz-consultants – took “brand” as a veneer… – next came “design” . – and hurray! – the system could have been a lot more stupid: the design discussion was/is led in a much more sophisticated way than one would have ever hoped for. INnovation brings the discussion INside the organization – and kills the idiotic perspective of manipulative facade marketing. – a death that was long overdue.
3. just as brand never really was a marketing job but much more an organizational challenge – design is even more – and “INnovation” can make that wonderfully clear. (at least to P&G… and even to anthropologists… so there is hope!)

And then – talking of the dangers of burning meaning out of words: innovation also takes the heat of design a little bit. which is good – because design is very dear to our heart.

see. it could all be much worse.