Last week, author Ralph Ohr wrote a blog post titled, “Evolutionary and Revolutionary Innovation” in response to recent discussions with RE:INVENTION and a blog post written by RE:INVENTION CEO’s former Entrepreneur Magazine editor, Rieva Lesonsky.
In his post, Ralph suggested that companies must pursue both revolutionary and evolutionary innovation to survive. He postulates that evolutionary innovation focuses on orientation towards today’s customers and revolutionary innovation focuses on orientation of tomorrow’s customers. That only revolutionary innovation is associated with uncertainty.
Hat tip to both Ralph and Rieva for their thought-provoking blog posts. With respect, we disagree. We must own a different dictionary. Authors and academics often amuse us with their semantics and misuse of terms.
HERE’S OUR RESPONSE…..
So let’s apply these definitions to the concept of innovation. BOTH evolutionary innovation and revolutionary innovation need to focus on orientation of today’s customers AND tomorrow’s customers to gain traction. BOTH evolutionary innovation and revolutionary innovation are fed by visionary foresight. BOTH are connected to high uncertainty.
Not all firms need both (or can/must manage both).
The Advantages of Evolutionary Innovation
EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION mounts challenging hill after hill at an even pace, day after day. Evolutionary innovation plans for the world as it could be and begins calculated migration to new ideas while understanding the world as it is today. Revolutionary innovation (particularly unmitigated, first or speed to market revolutionary innovation) can deplete energy and resources; akin to climbing a hill comprised of Confectioner’s sugar. Frenetic pacing over unstable, dramatically varied terrain – forcing change for a new system or idea prematurely while ignoring the realities of today’s market — is a lot more challenging.
We can point to numerous examples where evolution worked and revolution failed in the automotive, energy, technology, and transportation industries. For more, see: http://bit.ly/Nawald. Proof that non-linear or revolutionary innovations do not always achieve the most significant advances.
– Source: “Speed to Market and New Product Performance Tradeoffs,” Journal of Product Innovation Management
– Source: Jim Collins, “Good to Great”
– Source: National Bureau of Economic Research
Lest we forget: the iPod was not the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn’t the first smartphone, and the iPad wasn’t the first tablet. Apple ENHANCES. Apple EVOLVES ideas. The idea that Apple is a disruptive, revolutionary innovator is pure bunk. In the words of the always brilliant, Patrick Thibodeau (Computerworld’s senior editor): “the iPad is about as innovative as the toaster.” Apple excels at EVOLUTION.
Inventors disrupt; most companies evolve. Companies that try to “disrupt” (take for instance, biotech startups) rarely commercialize anything at all. Their company or product is acquired by a company that can bring the idea to market. Yes there are outliers, but they are few and far between. And that’s OK.
The reality is that most successful companies out-execute the competition with a new twist on an existing product or service *OR* they are better-equipped to commercialize an invention than the original inventor. Companies should see competition as an opportunity to improve products and customer service. Connecting with customers in the marketplace should be the ultimate goal, not speed to market or “revolutionary innovation.” Quick pause: the word “should” makes us shudder, so let’s say it in a different way. Companies are generally better off when they focus on people, action and impact rather than technology and “innovation.” That’s basic good business. It’s amazing how many companies fail at the basics. Get the basics right and you can build a sustainable business. People (customers and employees) drive company prosperity and change the world for good.
– RE:INVENTION’s 10 Principles of Everyday Inventive Companies: www.everydayinventive.com
– Check out this “Creative versus Innovative” debate on LinkedIn. Semantics! Focus on people, action and impact instead.