as I said before, the term innovation is more often than not used in the context of business, and the metrics around profit generation.
also, as said earlier, perhaps innovation can only really be identified after it has been successful. My point is; is there such a thing as negative innovation? I’m not talking about military weapons either…
it is not unusual for the business sector to take up terms and reassign a definition according to specific points of view. take for intstance the use of metaphores in business language…"pipeline, roadmap, bullpen, bird-dog’
since the word “innovation” has been overused. I guess it depends on in what paticular context you apply this word. it could be a new material, or a real meaningful product that just fit our particular need. Yet, i think a good innovaiton has to bring a better balance between the consumers and the nature??? just a thought!!!
I like John Heskett’s definition of innovation, he said,
Invention only becomes innovation when it is embraced by the users. […] till then it remains an invention.
For example, the iPod is an overused example of product innovation, but it didn’t have the sales volumes it does, it would have remained a really cool invention.
Novel without being bizzarre. Something they don’t stress in art school, but the natural checks and balances of a university shoud teach it well. Art school geeks take note.
I haven’t seen the word Innovation misused much–it’s always meant doing something new. In the design context, if you’re talking about an aesthetic being innovative, it probably isn’t except in its context.
The most misused marketing jargon is “disruptive.” Too many people confuse it with “breakthrough” and there’s a huge difference in business.
My point is that if innovation means new than wouldn’t every design be innovative. I feel that innovation is by far on of the most over used word in buisness right up there with ergonomic.
No way. Just because you design a toaster doesn’t make it innovative. It would have to really be out of it’s element to be considered innovative.
Think of it as a scale from 1-10. 1 might be any new product, 10 might be starting a new design movement. The vast majority are in the lower numbers, and therefore calling them “innovative” would be a stretch.
Are those new KRUPS designs innovative? I’d say yes only because they made it on the Core blog and designers started a thread about them. If designers talk about it, it’s probably innovative.
I ranted about the XBOX360 design specifically because it seemed to lack innovation by design, but that’s a different thread.
Not to go all Clintonian on you but it deepends on what your definition of NEW is. Is your hitting that last post with the blue text new? Is that new toaster really anything new, or just a rehash, a reskin, a facelift, of an existing product.
You see not every newly introduced product truly brings something new to the marketplace. I’m seeing the next topic allready, what the heck is new?
idealistically innovation is something that the innovator alone understands in first place and can see its development in non marginal spectrum. further, it can’t be utilized without complete understanding of its innovative architecture. it should go full circle.
there are degrees in innovative thought and it can be comprised of several other innovations. in other words, internally or externally it can have many interactive levels.
a good innovater takes care of all the issues involved including the definition of key elements which could be left as descrete if it comes to ip protection.
otherwise it wouldn’t be innovation, just creativity plus hap hazard invention.
I could be wrong but I believe that innovation is simply the enhancement or improvement to an existing category in which the is some form of benefit to the end user.
Or another take on it would be that it is the commercial exploitation of new ideas…
I do believe too that it is becoming a bit of a buzz word, however it is up to the designers to make it reality rather than some boardroom waffle…
I agree with you Pacho and it is up to the designer to keep this word from becoming boardroom waffle. But I feel there are some designers such as Karim Rashid that like to turn this word in to designer fluff. He has aways designed products that aren’t really practical. Except for the method products. Where as you have designers like Graves that can make something playful and fuctional and sell it to the average person like he has done with Target. That my friend is what I consider Innovation.