{"id":662,"date":"2015-02-23T09:00:50","date_gmt":"2015-02-23T14:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.archtam.com\/blogs\/?p=662"},"modified":"2017-07-25T09:16:57","modified_gmt":"2017-07-25T13:16:57","slug":"innovation-how-to-make-the-magic-happen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.archtam.com\/blog\/innovation-how-to-make-the-magic-happen\/","title":{"rendered":"Innovation \u2014 How to make the magic happen"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you type the word \u201cinnovation\u201d into Google, you will get more than 407 million Web page results. Fortunately, if you type \u201cdefinition of innovation,\u201d your results are much less \u2014 only 235 million results. With these two search terms alone generating such a variety of views and definitions, is it any wonder most people are confused by the concept of innovation, and unclear on how to \u201cdo\u201d more of it?<\/p>\n

As someone who has driven the innovation portfolio for ArchTam\u2019s Australia and New Zealand businesses since 2009, the main challenge I have encountered \u2014 and that stops people from being innovative \u2014 is agreeing on a common definition. It seems people cannot progress to trying to be innovative if there isn\u2019t a broad agreement on what the term means. Some believe, for example, that innovation is only valid when it is in the context of something large, complex and brand new. These same people write off anything small, simple and an application from somewhere else as not worthy of being labelled \u201cinnovative.\u201d<\/p>\n

These types of arguments are, in my opinion, unrealistic and not actually needed. It also wastes energy \u2014 energy that can be used in better ways. \u00a0As a company that doesn\u2019t have a production line of widgets, it is even more important for ArchTam to provide people with the freedom to innovate in any way they feel comfortable with.<\/p>\n

When I started talking to people about what innovation means, the terms and phrases used were polarising. Some people believed that to be labelled \u201cinnovative,\u201d something needed to be invented, while others said an innovation could be a slight tweak. Others still saw change of any magnitude as potentially being \u201cinnovative.\u201d And there was always someone who spoke about risk and failure. So who is right? Everyone!<\/em><\/p>\n

In my experience, innovation is one of the most ambiguous words there is. Instead of chasing the allusive \u201ceveryone is in agreement\u201d definition, we should instead embrace and be comfortable with the ambiguity. I challenge any definition to be perfect \u2014 so why bother trying to find it? And if you only look at the outputs or end products of what GE, 3M, Apple, Google, or any other innovative company has achieved, you will instantly set yourself up to fail. Concentrate on those things that you<\/em> can do, not necessarily what others have done.<\/p>\n

Instead of trying to compare yourself (or your company) to an unrealistic goal, concentrate on the key common elements that are integral for any \u201cinnovative\u201d outcome \u2014 no matter how incremental or ground-breaking it is. If you concentrate on the inputs (those that you can actually control) and not the outputs, you will have a much higher chance of success.<\/p>\n

The key elements of any type of innovation (large or small) are as follows:<\/p>\n