CPH127

First of all, welcome Christina! It’s great that you finally joined our flight!

I think you are on to something really, really important in your post! Usign design thinking as an approach to innovate is not (only) about speed, its about timing.

Timing is important and Apple is a good example. When they released the first PDA, Newton it was a disaster. The reasons where many, but to say the least the timing was bad. Other PDA’s followed years later and hit jack-pot. They were smaller and looked better but most of all, their timing was right.
Now everybody is talking about Apple’s iPod which is not only a pretty good product (it still has some flaws e.g. the battery issue) but most of all Apple’s timing was good.

Another angle is what innovation consiste of. Dell didn’t invent the PC (or e-shopping) but they invented how we purchase PC’s. Apple didn’t invent the Mp3 player but they invented a new meaning of it. An iPod clearly means something else than the rest of the Mp3 players on the market.

These companies was not first with the product itself but with the particular meaning, application, ways of interaction that they proposed. They were first with a new value for the customer. And the launch of this new value had good timing.

hmm…i’m ranting. I dont know if it makes sense but it’s an interesting subject.

I agree that innovation is most likely a buzzword of today, and isn’t the only or best activity that can aid growth or improve business performance. And all too often innovation takes place instead of much needed attention to internal systems and processes, like in Enron’s case perhaps, to business behaviour.

I think this also points towards the common misconception that there is first-mover advantage, and in fact, it is more often later entrants who succeed by severely improving on the incumbent’s offerings. And this is because of innovation, and in the example of Dell - Dell doesn’t feature product innovation, but perhaps focuses instead on supply chain and distribution innovation. So Dell tends to stick to a single area of strength and adapts that. Will Dell be as innovative again, as it was in capturing the position it now has in the market place?

Interestingly, US companies generally feature innovation as a core value far less than their European or Asian counterparts. Which I think is interesting, and wonder if that shows in how it is thought about outside of the US.

I don’t think it is a question of either - I think organizations are capable of innovation and adaptation, in varying sizes of scale. In fact, would go as far to say, innovation will usually require adaptation in terms of managing it.

So I might suggest that it would be better to say, “Adapt or Die” - Innovation? Take it or leave it, depending on your taste for growth and improvement.

Great post - thank you.

I agree it isn’t a question of Innovate or die! It is just so interesting how many speakers, who use this title for a speech or how many authors, who use it for an article. And I just miss the debate, which is in between – the combination of innovation and adaptation.

It is important in my daily work, and this is why I keep searching and asking….J

Take for instance a successful company like the LVHM. Part of the product development budget is used for innovation, such as outstanding couture only a few would buy – if anyone, and the other part is used for renewal, such as the traditional logo bags. What I find interesting is, that LVHM might not sell more than 1 or 2 of the couture gowns (just guessing! – and trying to make a point), but they get a tremendous amount of PR, and furthermore strengthen their image as an innovative and risk taking company, which again increases the sales of for example the logo bags.

I think that a lot of companies are using the “combination” strategy. But how many companies, which doesn’t are aware of the positive effects it might have?

What is your opinion? What is most common, that an innovation instantly increases sales or that an innovation most like increase sale on other products and services, and result in profitable PR?

In relation to this question – is there a difference when it comes to luxury goods or product produced for the mass markets?

Welcome to cph, Christina.

Good post, and of course everything depends on context. What bothers me about “innovate or die” is that it relies on fear as a motivation.

And fear quite often causes either paralysis or over-reaction.

For me, innovation is often more likely to come from a spirit of generosity and playfulness.

Perhaps “Innovate or Die” should be incrementally applied over time to various industries based on pragmatic criteria. For example, the automobile industry will soon face enormous pressure to find alternative fuels, if not alternative forms of transportation, in light of the rising price of oil (reflecting scarcity) and increasing global population (scarcity of physical space), among other factors. The question is how much time they have to adapt to these changing realities versus having to innovate as a response. From reading Jared Diamond’s book Collapse, and from oil consumption projections, time looks to be short. And much more is at stake beyond market share when one considers environmental costs — ultimately this DOES become a question of “Innovate or Die”.

Hi Hans,

I think that track back link to my post is by some goof up in the system, I have not linked to this post. I’m cluttering up your system please delete if you wish.

Thank you

NIti

Hmmmm…;-)

Trackback’s can only been seen when you choose to post them as part of your own posting…;-)

So……it is up to you to delete the trackback in your post.

All the best
Hans Henrik

Hans,
The link will show up in your typepad “list trackbacks”, I must have mispasted the trackback url, but once it’s done, you can only remove it.

niti

Removed - thx Niti
/HH