
Working my way through this summer’s reading list, I enjoyed some great books and a few not so great. One book in particular stands out as a major disappointment. Scott Berkun’s “the myths of innovation,” is that book. This book has received a lot of good commentary in the blogosphere. So, you might ask why I found it so disappointing.
In all fairness, this book is a pleasant read. It is well written, and Berkun’s style connects with the reader. So, what’s wrong with it?
This book perpetuates the most destructive innovation of all. In chapter 3, Berkun asserts that there is no method for innovation. In this discussion of the way of innovation, the author reveals a fundamental failure to understand repeatable innovation methods.
The discussion presented jumps from the notion that many people have followed many paths to the ill founded conclusion that there are no maps to help the innovation practitioner to reliably find their way to high-value innovation. While most organizations are stuck in the quagmire of accidental innovation, this does not establish dispositive proof that there is not a better way, nor does it mean today’s norm is the ideal for tomorrow.
Industry practice provides many very important examples of organizations that have successful implemented innovation programs—programs built on the assertion that innovation is a discipline that can be developed as a competency. In another book on my summer reading list, “The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation” (A.G. Lafley and Ram Charan), the Proctor & Gamble program is described. It is clear that P&G have pursued innovation with the intention of achieving demonstrable competence. Their results give testimony to the success of their efforts.
There are many other cases which can be cited. We are all aware of companies that have broken away from the accidental mode of innovation and which have instead pursued with alacrity the path of sustainable innovation practice. However, for the company that is still hampered by poor innovation practices, it is too easy to feel that being part of the pack of accidental innovators is good enough. Berkun’s book provides an easy refuge for those who want to justify their status quo.
No, I will not be recommending this book to anyone. We need to shatter the myths that prop up the barriers to innovation. All too often the no-innovation-methods myth is used to erect walls that prevent knowledge workers from fulfilling their innovation potential. Equipped with knowledge of sustainable innovation best practices, these knowledge workers discover the walls around them are nothing more than a Potemkin village.








Reaction to Perpetuating Innovation Myths
Scott Berkun, author of “the myths of innovation”, has responded to my post last week commenting on his book. In fairness to Scott, I am posting his reply here rather than leaving it buried in a blog comment. I have also included some additional commentary. First, here is Scott’s comment (paragraph breaks inserted for easy reading).
Thanks for your response, Scott. I do believe you took the risk of perpetuating innovation myths very seriously. However, care and diligence do not guarantee the result.
First of all, it is a mistake to assert that any individual who has demonstrated some success in business (presumably via innovation) is thereby an expert on innovation. The idea that organizations must accept low success rates from their innovation efforts is one based on a fundamental failure to understand the mechanisms available to drive high performance innovation.
Let’s consider for a moment one of the organizations you mention in your reply—P&G. Here we see an organization that was plagued by an 84% failure rate in new product launches. They realized that they needed to approach things differently and make innovation a core functional competence. They have implemented many aspects of sustainable innovation practice, and the impact is undeniable. P&G now enjoy the benefits of a 75% success rate—a stunning improvement by any measure.
While you might say that this is the exception that proves the rule, my observation and experience make it quite clear that this is not the case. Where companies have made the innovation practice a true priority and not merely window dressing, the results have been predictably very strong.
As to the rest of your book, I have not said anything to suggest that my opinion of the rest of the content is negative. Quite the contrary, I have said: “In all fairness, this book is a pleasant read. It is well written, and Berkun’s style connects with the reader.”
However, the issue remains that there are many companies that are not sure what to do about innovation. Should they embrace a path forward that integrates innovation thinking into their business and operating culture, or should they continue with the status quo and be content with the lack luster performance they see from their current innovation efforts. It is clear that in the current global market climate, companies cannot afford to be complacent, but there is also a great pressure on these same companies to manage their risks well.
This is why it is so important for these organizations to understand that there is a better way. This is why I feel that this chapter of your book is so pivotal to the evolving innovation conversation, and why I have reacted as I have to your book.
Posted at 11:09 AM in Books, Commentary, High Performance Innovation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |