Startups, Labs and innovation departments. They’re everywhere, with varying degrees of success, even questionable ones. But where does this need to create “The next big thing” come from? Certainly, if we don’t evolve… our businesses can be at risk, but risking everything in a big innovation can be just as risky. Especially since, in the current economic climate, it’s hard to justify spending money on innovations where the outcome is not guaranteed, and sometimes not even known until the start of the exercise.
As for me, I have a very different approach to innovation: “It’s the context that determines whether you should innovate.
To innovate without knowing what problem we want to solve is to let chance dictate our actions. It’s by knowing the context and understanding the problems that exist within that context that we can determine whether trying to innovate is a good idea.
If you have NASA’s budget
Rumor has it that during the race to the moon between the USA and Russia, NASA spent a small fortune to create a pen that could work in space. This pen is better known as the Space Pen. The Russians used lead pencils.
Interesting, isn’t it?
So who won?
NASA, because it had the first pencil to go into space? Or Russia, which bought the same pencil two years later without ever taking any risks?
In any case, do you think it was this pencil that made the difference in the race to conquer the Moon?
Or is the innovation required to get to the moon far more complex than a simple pencil?
“Start with boring. Boring is good. Boring works. Innovate on what makes a difference.”
Staying on earth to reach the moon
1 – Laissez-moi chercher sur Google. Ou, GPT pour vous.
Yes, it sounds arrogant, but if it already exists, it’s not innovation. It simply means that someone has already found a solution to your problem. You might as well take advantage of it, and not invest in reinventing the wheel..
2 – R&D… Escroquerie et duplicata
A solution already exists, but is not appropriate to your context. In this way, you can aim for a partial improvement or innovation, which is very practical. You can compare the context of the existing solution with your own, and target the improvements you need to make. You’ll have access to comparisons on processes, technologies, functionalities, user perceptions, defects/qualities, etc. All you have to do is improve according to your needs and context.
3 – Innovate or die (as a business)
Congratulations, you’re unique. Your context is either unique, or nobody has solved your problem before or communicated it publicly. Finally, can we talk about innovation, not because it’s “glam”, but because we have no choice. And when we don’t have a choice, investing in projects where we don’t know the end result becomes necessary.
Considerations
Obviously, depending on the context, methodologies, budgets and deadlines, the right to make mistakes and take risks will not be the same. That’s why it’s essential to start from the context, in order to make the best use of resources and time.
So, when you have a project and you’re a startup, a lab or an innovation department, one of your priorities is to identify projects that are not or are less innovative. That way, you can prioritize the issues with the best return on investment (ROI), or delegate them to the right teams. After all, a company can exist without innovation if it’s productive, but it can’t survive if it innovates but never ends up producing anything.
