Who's Really Innovative?
Here’s a real treat: Gary Hamel’s Who’s Really Innovative? article recently published on (in?) the Wall Street Journal blog.
Once again, the lucid, straight shooting, and refreshing Hamel, hits a home run — taking on the phenomenon of annual “most innovative companies” lists.
Hamel makes some very useful distinctions between the four different kinds of innovative companies: Tyros, Nobel Laureates, Artistes, and Cyborgs. Lots to learn here, including:
“If you want a measure of just how difficult it is to stay innovative, consider this: Two-thirds of the businesses on Fast Company’s 2009 list of the 50 most innovative companies didn’t make into the 2010 edition. When it comes to innovation, few companies stand on the winner’s podium for long.”
The paradox? By the time you finish reading Hamel’s article, at least three more publications will come out with yet another list of the most innovative companies of 2010.
Don’t miss an article (2,050+) – Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Mitch Ditkoff is the Co-Founder and President of Idea Champions and the author of “Awake at the Wheel”, as well as the very popular Heart of Innovation blog.
NEVER MISS ANOTHER NEWSLETTER!
LATEST BLOGS
What happened to smart advertising?
For a television advertisement to be effective, do you need to lay out everything for the viewer and make it obvious? Or, is an advertisement more memorable if you let the viewer connect the dots themselves? Here are two examples of television advertisements that promote the product in a slightly more intellectual/emotional way that promotes engagement and curiousity:
Read More
Invention versus Innovation
Continuous innovation requires that innovation is placed at the center of the organization and that all parts of the organization are changed to support it. To effectively place innovation at the center of the organization, people must know what innovation is, what it looks like in their organization, and how they can contribute. Most people easily confuse invention with innovation, and wrongly chase invention in the name of innovation.
Read More