My thoughts on Innovation

Thank you for joining me again this time. Today I would like to talk about the topic of innovation. Interesting for me, maybe for you too, because in my professional context I often hear that I have to be innovative. "Think out of the box"! they say. Today, however, I overheard a statement that one of the decision-makers of some projects is not at all into innovation and claims: Stay basic, the basis has to be right otherwise it's no good.

So what is it? Innovation or the tried and tested?
What is innovation anyway?
And is it even possible to be innovative?

Let's take a look together on innovation.

One definition of innovation says:

Innovation is a process by which a domain, a product, or a service is renewed and brought up to date by applying new processes, introducing new techniques, or establishing successful ideas to create new value. The creation of value is a defining characteristic of innovation.

(Source Goolge search)

If we break down this definition then we realize that:

• the "product" must already exist, as it is being renewed,
• the "product" must receive an update in which it is adapted (probably to the new times and their circumstances)
• Value must be created and in this context, as well as in my professional context, I understand value as "added value".

But we are already fully in the subject. A product that is adapted to today's times, at all levels, is that innovation? Could innovation be a simple synonym for "spirit of the times"?

Electric cars were seen as innovative progress. Green energy, less exhaust fumes and less noise. Modern? Yes. In tune with the times and current political and social priorities. That's for sure! But innovative? Can something simply be "adapted" and then be innovative, especially when technology, research, society and politics have developed so much?

Is innovation the new standard then?

I now think that innovation is not even possible, but is often confused with modernization or adaptation. The new basis cannot be innovative if it is only supposed to be the basis .... Because where would innovation start and where would it end?

Ultimately, what does "value" or "added value" mean in this context? More value to what? Is it possible to compare the same product from two generations and determine added value? In a direct comparison without context, certainly, but I think that the context relativizes the value of a product.

I think that innovative "out of the box" thinking is just modern thinking, with the difference that the "product" didn't exist yet. That's why I ask myself whether it's even possible to be innovative. Because at the end of the day, who decides what is innovative based on which value system?

Exciting, isn't it? What do you think about innovation? Let me know. I'd be happy to exchange ideas with you.