
After 25 Years Studying Innovation, Here Is What I Have Learned - NaOH
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/after-40-years-studying-innovation-here-what-i-have-christensen/
======
loosetypes
> The word innovation has become a buzzword routinely used to describe things
> that are new, shiny, feature-rich, and, in some cases, breakthrough.

Word-inflation is real.

Here at Purdue, a new building on campus is called the Innovation Design
Center[0], which I find insultingly presumptuous.

Next thing you know Panda Express will call itself gourmet dining. Oh wait,
they already do[1].

What I find interesting is the company uses that word in graphics but I never
see it on official, indexed text on their site. It's like they're trying to
fly under the radar with subliminally audacious advertising by minimizing the
paper-trail.

But maybe that's overly paranoid, because it looks like they also have an
Innovation Kitchen[2].

Is there a term for words that only really make sense retrospectively or maybe
should be prefixed by "trying to" in the present tense?

Someone ~trying to be~ an innovator/ entrepreneur.

[0] [https://www.purdue.edu/bidc/](https://www.purdue.edu/bidc/) [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_Express#/media/File:Pand...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_Express#/media/File:Panda_Express_logo.svg)
[2]
[https://www.pandaexpress.com/innovationkitchen](https://www.pandaexpress.com/innovationkitchen)

~~~
jacobolus
You are putting the word “innovation” on a pedestal. There is no clearly
defined threshold above which a new application of a product, process, or idea
must pass before it can be called “innovative”, and how innovative something
is depends strongly on context. What seems like a triviality to one person
might well be an innovation to someone else.

There are many places and contexts where people are doing incredibly stupid or
inefficient things, and the application of simple centuries-old or apparently
obvious ideas might well qualify as “innovation”.

For example, consistently using paper checklists in a hospital has a huge
impact. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/10/the-
checklist](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/10/the-checklist)

~~~
truth_be_told
Excellent Article! The "Genius" of "Simplicity" exemplified.

------
Ozzie_osman
It's kind of crazy to me that people are discounting his ideas simply because
he mentioned that he believes in God. I've read his books and had a chance to
meet him. He's brilliant (and that's despite the fact that he recently had a
stroke and at the time had difficulty concentrating). Read any of his books...
He was able to come up with really simple models that explain some pretty
complex competitive outcomes that had perplexed a lot of people for decades.

------
dqpb
> _But God is different. Because he has an infinite mind, he does not need to
> aggregate above the level of an individual. As I thought about this, I
> realized that the way God would measure my life is different than how we
> measure each other’s. Instead of aggregating all my accomplishments,
> comparing them with the accomplishments of my friends and colleagues, and
> then giving me a grade, he would simply want to know how I helped other
> people. It will not be about my degrees, books, or awards, but about the
> lives I was able to assist along the way._

This author sounds like a deeply confused person.

~~~
bonniemuffin
Eh, I think focusing on helping others over prestige and external acclaim is a
healthy way to approach the world, no matter how you come to that conclusion.

~~~
__blockcipher__
I disagree. Read their words carefully and it appears they never gave up the
old mentality. They just changed how they define achievement.

I’m not saying not to help others - just that I think their mentality is still
a reflection of the desire to achieve

~~~
minkzilla
I think that is the point. Moving ones personal definition of achievement from
superficial to meaningful. There is a innate desire to do something
useful(achieve); and you can't get rid of that. What you can do is decide what
you focus your desire and actions towards.

------
aj7
Clayton Christensen divines God’s methodology. Most of his other points were
also cliche-ridden. Something is wrong here.

~~~
andyidsinga
> cliche-ridden

hmmm. have you read his book "The Innovator’s Dilemma" ? I was shocked that
it's already 25 years old. I think it maybe be _the_ seminal book on
disruptive innovation. Low-end disruption, new-market disruption, "job to be
done" AFAIK - those are all Christensen.

If there's cliches there - I suspect they came about in the shadow of his body
of work over the years.

------
mgamache
I see a number of people reacting negatively to the 'God' section. I also had
an issue with it. Let me explain why I found it odd: He spends most of the
article asserting his points by tying them to real examples or at least ones
that resemble common events we all see. He then launches into moralizing with
God as his touchstone "But God is different. Because he has an infinite mind".
No, I don't think he was talking about Eisenstein's God or some other
abstraction. I don't disagree with his broader points about how you should
measure your worth, but he could have made them in a much more effective way
by just asking the reader to imagine the outcome of a life lived for only
yourself.

~~~
mkagenius
I somehow had no problem with the usage of God and found it pretty effective,
infact, maybe the other alternative you suggest seem a little obscure.

------
mnd999
In my experience when people claim to be innovating, it tends to follow the
90% rule - i.e. 90% of it is crap.

~~~
XnoiVeX
haha. There's a name for that. "Innovation theater". Happens in many large
companies.

------
hyperpallium
He doesn't really explain here (IMHO) the nub of his "disruption": if people
want an easier, cheaper product, why don't great firms just make it?

A. Because their present customers, around which the entire business is
optimized, _don 't_ want them (they want faster/better, not easier/cheaper).
And finding and serving those other customers is a completely different
ballgame. Really, a different business.

i.e. his point wasn't really about great new products, but _why didn 't
existing businesses do them._

BTW It isn't very _predictive_ ; he predicted iphones wouldn't amount to much.

~~~
ssivark
Christensen's Harvard colleague Rebecca Henderson has done some research how
the organizational structure of big companies gets in the way and prevents
them from re-organizing around innovations. Tim Harford has an interesting
article on the subject: [http://timharford.com/2018/10/why-big-companies-
squander-bri...](http://timharford.com/2018/10/why-big-companies-squander-
brilliant-ideas/)

~~~
jacques_chester
I feel these explanations are always post facto. "Oh they didn't react, it was
so obvious, those silly dinosaurs!"

Well a hundred World Changing Mega Hyper Super Switchy Disrupt-o-Trends come
along every month. _Nobody_ knows which of them will pan out. Asking a giant
company with a stable, reliable way of turning money into more money to drop
everything at every rustle in the leaves is not reasonable.

------
dancoup
an academic talking about innovation, that's my favourite kind of people. He
probably never invented something. Its like someone talks about architecture
but never build a house. He has now skin in the game.

ah, doing "consulting" does not count. Why?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp6_3UQLi2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp6_3UQLi2Y)

------
afshanadiya
Isn't it great to help people?

------
steelframe
tl;dr: Oxytocin > Dopamine.

~~~
jhayward
I think I know what you're getting at; I'd like to read a much better comment
than this one explaining what you see as the core truth of what the author is
saying.

