The problem is that it is necessary to ask the following questions:
– what is being developed is a real Innovation? And then
– What is the real innovation?
– Are there different types of innovation? (Is it possible that you are choosing the wrong type of innovation?)
What innovation is needed today?
The underlying issue is today the sense of innovation has been lost sight of:
Innovation is a process that
HAS THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF PEOPLE.
In the traditional market – the one observed by Adam Smith – the primary goal is to satisfy people’s needs. In the current market, the primary goal is the Company’s Profit.
Previously making the interests of the Customers (satisfying their actual needs) the interests of the Company were also made, since the Customers were spontaneously led to purchase the products (this is the law of Supply and Demand).
Today bringing the focus on profit, it has been “discovered” that customers can be “induced” (by advertising) to also buy products that are practically useless to them.
This has led to a deterioration in people’s quality of life. And also an impoverishment of Customer spending.
<see Business problems: the difference between original and current marketing>
.
.
Today there are two types of innovation, one typical of the Market in favor (today in serious crisis), and one of the incoming Market, that of successful Startups.
● The first type of innovation – innovation developed by the market in decline – defined as “incremental innovation”, brings an improvement in product performance.
In this form of Innovation (developed today by at least 90% of the Companies) there is a basic problem:
THAT DEVELOPED TODAY BY THE MARKET
IS NOT A REAL INNOVATION
This is because the innovation developed by most Companies (first of all by the big players, the Incumbents) is not at all able to satisfy real needs of people. (see below)
.
● The second type of innovation – that of the (still very few) successful Company’s Market – which is based on a completely different innovation, called Disuptive innovation.
<see What disruption essentially is>
.
The problem of the current market is that widespread innovation currently instead of developing greater satisfaction of people’s real needs, develops technological performances (which have virtually no real utility for the customers) that are used as a sales argument to induce the customers to purchase (the needs that are satisfied in this case are “emotional needs” invented by current marketing).
<see Why Hi-Tec and disruptive innovation are incompatible (the “Human factor”)>
.
Today, in order to be able to sell their products,
IT IS NECESSARY TO
DEVELOP A REAL INNOVATION,
THAT IS ABLE TO MEET REAL NEEDS OF PEOPLE
(see in ““Competing Against Luck” by C. Christensen)
The current crisis is caused precisely by the big names of Market, which defend compact current status quo with expedients of various kinds.
It is therefore necessary to understand the need to change in order to adapt to one of the phases of history in which “revolutions” develop that change the Society to its foundations, after which “nothing is as it was before” (for example, revolutions Enlightenment, French, Industrial).
Today the market must perform a quantum leap – a shift paradigm – in which they can radically change the business.
<see ‘Manifesto of Innovation (2): Innovation in the new post-industrial Market’ >
<see ..Decalogue of Rulesof Disruptive innovation >
.
In summary, the problem of the current market (in decline) is that
1) change is not an option, but the Incumbents – the big companies – oppose a strenuous resistance against it. <see .Why disruptive innovation is not an option >
2) the big companies just are not able to develop real innovation due to intrinsic limits (innovating the products in the new mode means first of all innovating oneself to move into this dimension).
<see Why the big companies cannot innovate within them [1] >
<see The Company Immune System: why the big Companies cannot develop real innovation>
<see How can companies change themselves?>
Recall that the Hybrid Disruptive/Sustaining Innovation are failures, since where we want to develop Disruptive Innovation but incorporate Sustaining Innovation strategies, a basic conflict is created that undermines the strategies.
<see The failure of hybrid innovation (Disruptive + Sustaining Innovation)>
