Perpetuating Innovation Myths

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.

Comments

[Scott Berkun]

Hi James - Thanks for mentioning the book.

I took the risk of perpetuating myths quite seriously, and I don't think I did what you're suggesting here. Take this for example, from The Myths of Innovation, Chapter 3, pg. 44:

"Steve Jobs, founder of Apple and Pixar, was asked 'how do you systematize innovation?' His answer was, 'You don't'(1). This was not what the readers of Business Week expected to hear, but foolish questions often receive disappointing answers. It's as absurd question as asking how to control the weather or herd cards, because those approximate the lack of control and number of variables inherent in innovation. Jobs, or any CEO, might have a system for trying to manage innovation, or a strategy for managing the risks of new ideas, but that's a far cry from systematizing something. I wouldn't call anything with a 50% failure rate a system, would you? The Boeing 777 has jet engines engineered for a guaranteed 99.99% reliability - now that's a system and a methodology. It's true that innovation is riskier than engineering, but that doesn't mean we should use words like system, control, or process so casually.'

Our disagreement might simply be about the words system, method or methodology. The failure rates for P&G, Google, or any poster child of an "innovation system" are extraordinarily high. They throw away many projects and ideas to obtain the handful that ever become products, much less successful ones. I think this is a a misuse of the word "system" or "method". At best what these folks do is expensive, risky and unpredictable. They experiment. And while there is significant work, planning and skill involved to manage experiments well, to call it a method you'd have to have much higher success rates.

You said:

"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."

Of course. But how many other companies that tried to do exactly the same thing failed? What is the ratio of successful implementations of these "methods" to failed ones? It's very high.

It's no surprise at this point that I find your suggestion I'm propagating a myth entirely unfair and unwarranted. There's little in my book that supports the status quo in any respect, most of my claims are support by research or at least industry anecdote, and I'm baffled at how one chapter, regardless of how awful it might have been, tanks your judgment of the other 9 :)

Best wishes,

-Scott