Innovation is often understood as the attempt to do the same thing in a quicker, different or more elegant manner. Unfortunately, this cannot be carried out in a time-bound manner. Indeed, there should be no limits to innovation unless the core technology concerned becomes obsolete
Innovation is the applied aspect of creativity. It has been available in modern literature for over a century- and-a-half. It has had its own share of prominence in different parts of the world in different times. It has been a particular favourite for entrepreneurial actions in all seasons. In the last few decades, it has acquired almost universal applicability and now everything has to be ‘innovative’. That’s clearly a high goal to achieve.
It is so because without ensuring the routine, innovation cannot happen. Unfortunately ‘routine’ is a lot like the hygiene factor — crucial but often taken for granted. Yet, even standard performance at the routine-level is a far bigger challenge than attempting innovation. The trouble is discussing performance on the ‘routine’ is unglamorous. Discussing performance on innovation is fashionable.
Be that as it may, innovation is often understood as the attempt to do the same thing in a quicker, different or more elegant manner. Unfortunately, this cannot be carried out in a time-bound manner. Indeed, there would be no parameters to this change unless the core technology concerned becomes obsolete.
Innovation and creativity has its time-honoured classification. Perhaps there is a case to revisit it. By the same token, talk of creativity and innovation is often catapulted to significance by the patronage it receives from political processes.
let us first take up the issue of classification of creativity and innovation. In the popular discourse, two classifications are found — scientific creativity and artistic/literary creativity. Scientific creativity has predictive validity. The techniques are time-tested and the results can be forecast. They include a number of methods which work through, among other things, permutation and combination. Techniques such as forced matching, attributes listing, checklist of questions, morphological synthesis are well tested also. One can always create new products or services through them.
As differentiated from scientific creativity, literary creativity is less predictive. Often it is a dyadic situation — either it happens or it does not happen. One has to wait for inspiration — poems and outstanding creative performances are based on it. It is true that art also has a form. For example, poems have meters and dance routines have structures. Yet any great performance in the form of poetry, dance, painting and more is different when inspired — an inspired rendering is different from a customised rendering. The difference between scientific creativity and artistic creativity lies in the recognition of measurements and standards.
There is also yet another class of creative action. It is neither literary nor scientific but it is simply there. One knows the route to being different, useful and much more elegant, not because there is scientific method or one has been inspired, but because one has experienced so much and observed so well, that the instinct is at work. let’s call this ‘informed creativity’. The sixth sense — if there be any such thing — takes over and one feels one’s way through confusion and experimentation to something worthwhile. If one has to feel one’s way through innovative products, services and indeed lifestyle one has to use all of this and indeed select which approach to creativity and innovation works best.
It would be stating the obvious to say that ‘innovation’ has had huge political patronage in last decade or so, and one name that is often associated with it is that of Sam Pitroda. The doubting Thomases will obviously ask for a tally and checklist of the achievements of such people. That however, is another story. The burden of this piece is to establish the primacy and relevance of innovation as a life principle.