Invent Over Innovate
Last week, I posited that innovation is a problematic term with many public sector and not-for-profit groups that I work with. It’s a business buzzword that rubs people the wrong way.
As someone who loves creative problem solving and innovation this introduces a measure of… well… dynamic tension. On the one hand I understand the urge to eyeroll every time someone claims an “innovative breakthrough.” On the other, sometimes we do arrive at truly ingenious solutions worth celebrating.
Recently, my approach to this dynamic tension has been two-fold:
Reframe innovation as personal agency (more detail in the previous blog post)
Swap the word innovation with invention
Yes, technically, innovation and invention mean different things. The usual distinction suggests invention is about novelty and making something that did not exist before, and innovation is about improving, expanding and adding value to that invention. In other words, invention precedes innovation.
For me, invention also provides a better invitation when working with groups. Whether you imagine a lone inventor toiling away in her garage, or a small think tank, invention generates more initial goodwill than innovation. When the pressure to produce value or disrupt the status quo drops away, groups can focus more intently on solving local challenges.
As an added benefit, invention also creates space for iteration. Everyone knows that inventors try many approaches – and most fail (Edison and the light bulb is the most oft-quoted example). In this light, failure is (correctly) understood as part of the learning journey.
Lastly, I like that invention typically leads to something tangible. Too many groups dream up innovative ideas but fall down when it comes to execution. Invention requires making – and making is another great way to learn.
Inspiration
Pilcher, H. (2021). Small Inventions that Made a Big Difference. London, UK: Welbeck.