Innovation Stovepipes or Systems?

In the world of business innovation, we see a lot of homage being given to Keeley’s, et al (2013) work on the Ten Types of Innovation.  We are to be duly impressed with the number of actual cases used to determine the types of innovation.  Admittedly, 2000+ cases is a good “n” in the world of research and those that are highlighted provide valuable illustrations of innovation in a variety of businesses.  But before I could hop on the Ten Types train, I wanted to know more about the rigor of the study, i.e., how were these studies selected and what method was used to derive the types of innovation?  I have conducted several in depth searches to try to find this information and continue to hit roadblocks.  My opinion is that Deloitte (and before that Doblin), in the interests of protecting their intellectual property, buried that critical information. (I have a request for more information pending with Deloitte.)

In the absence of credible information about the method(s) used to determine the categories and assignment to those categories that make up the Ten Types, we must assume that it was a pretty subjective process.  I am happy to re-address this statement in this forum when I have empirical evidence to do so.  Without a selection method/process to understand how Keeley has categorize findings, we have no guidance on how to do this in our own organizations except our own interpretation.  As a result, any of the claims made within the discussion of the Ten Types can be pretty arbitrary and, as such, we are left with a method of categorization that may or may not be helpful in our own organization’s innovation effort and likely will not help our investigation of innovation needs and our examination of success or failure of the effort.  You might as well come up with your own system of organization.

Wait a minute – that’s a great idea! Each organization has its own idiosyncrasies – ecosystem, culture, vision, metrics for success.  How about a way of looking at potential innovation that capitalizes on and maintains the unique qualities of the organization?   

In addition to feeling like a cookie-cutter, the Ten Types approach has a stove-piped structure.  This structure tends to minimize the significance of the impact of the organization and its processes as a system, where a challenge or change in one area can impact another, oftentimes seemingly unrelated area.  A successful, sustainable innovation program should take a holistic view of the organization as a system – where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and mindfulness of the potential impact of seemingly unrelated ‘parts’ of the organization are front of mind.

In my opinion, if you are looking to successfully identify, implement, and evaluate innovation needs – use a systems thinking approach.

Keeley, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R., and Quinn, B. (2013). Ten types of innovation: The discipline of building breakthroughs (1st ed). Wiley