“Innovation occurs when there is external confirmation that a value aspiration gap has been reduced”
This definition of innovation came out of a forum discussion between myself and Don DeLauder, as a response to a question by Eugene Ivanov. I started with the intention of arguing that defining Innovation was a pointless exercise and ended up writing a definition that was thought provoking for me – hence the decision to share it.
First let me unpack the definition a little.
A value aspiration gap: This is a value gap that is opened when a tension emerges between the current state and the aspirations of people and/or entities. This is sometimes referred to as “unmet needs” – but innovation can be wider that just “needs”. If this tension grows it creates an opportunity and if people cannot find a way to close this gap with what is available in the current state, then some form of innovation is needed to fill the gap. In other words the need for innovation comes when the status quo fails to generate results that meet our aspirations, whether now or in some predicted future. In that case we need to create more value-we need to innovate.
External confirmation: This is when someone or something external to the creator / inventor confirms that a value aspiration gap has been reduced (ie some aspiration has been all or in part met) by assigning recognizable value to the innovation.
This idea that innovation occurs when we have confirmation external to the creator / inventor is broad – so here is an attempt to place some “boundary markers” . The idea being if one marker is crossed – it may be innovation – but as more are crossed , the certainty that we are looking at innovation goes up:
a) Confirmation of Financial value has been assigned to the innovation by a user – this could be anything from a third party willingness to donate in kind, to more traditional payment
b) Availability (the creation is available / accessible to others)
c) Shown to have addressed a real value gap – ie other people are using it to do something they did not do before.
d) Recognised by independent sources as creating value (eg technical magazines, reviews, trade fairs and the like)
So lets take this definition with the above clarification and run some thought experiments to test the definition in action.
Innovation covers a lot of ground often expressed in terms of “incremental” or “disruptive” – and everything inbetween. A definition needs to be something others can apply and use as a filter to say what is , and what is not , innovation. For our thought experiment – we need to try and identify things that could be innovation, then see if the definition helps show if they are inside or outside the boundaries of what is innovation, as set up by the definition.
To do this , three examples are picked for the thought experiment (coming from the discussion mentioned above).
At one end we can take the birth of quantum theory – here I am thinking of Einsteins theory that won him the nobel prize. In the middle , lets place Betamax – the innovation that lost to VHS (before both were overtaken by DVD , BlueRay and now streaming). At the other end we place any invention that failed.
If we take quantum theory – clearly this has been the foundation that has led to many breakthrough technologies like Semiconductors, in turn leading to things like strained quantum well lasers and then to CD players and the like. However – this fails to show a value aspiration gap. It takes time from theory breakthrough, to people , to understanding and interpreting , to new technologies , and during this , people start to develop aspirations for things that were impossible to imagine at the time of the breakthrough , creating value aspiration gaps – and then innovations start to occur to close these gaps. So in itself the theory is not innovation, but clearly the birthplace of much of our modern world. Innovation occurs later.
The failed invention loses out because , although the inventor has percieved some value aspiration gap – there fails to be any external confirmation that this is a real gap – so it is a “wannabe” innovation – but by the definition is not innovation.
Finally Betamax. This cleary fits the definition. People bought it , it was recognised as innovative, it was used and so on – all the indicators of external confirmation being met. Betamax failed due to normal business dynamics – in my simple version, both closed a value aspiration gap, but VHS got a better handle on the real value aspiration gap (wide content selection with good enough technology) so won the business battle over time.
The outcome of the thought experiment “feels right” – ie it successfully and clearly separates what is and what is not innovation in a way that, although utilitarian, seems to work and give meaningful answers. So its a good working definition. The boundary markers can, I am sure, be improved, but they seem also to work.
One interesting thing about this definition is that there are no words in the definition that states an innovation must be something “new” or “created”. These are two words often used when trying to define innovation, but make a sharp definition very difficult.
As long as the value aspiration gap is reduced, we have innovation. Creation is implied but not needed as part of the definition. Newness also is implied as an outcome, but not needed. It becomes instead a property people can assign as an outcome – things are percieved as new if they close a value aspiration gap – but perhaps are not new in some other context.
I hope you find this definition also of some use. Comments always welcome.
If people want to read the original forum discussion:https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4435998/4435998-5885738242841546754