"The Creative Monopoly"
In David Brooks most recent NY Times Editorial, "The Creative Monopoly", he defines the constraints of "competitive" innovation and makes a case for Creative Monopolies. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/brooks-the-creative-monopoly.html
His assertion is that if we are only competing then our ideas will be incremental at best and if we look to create that that has not to date been created (monopolies in this sense) we can define new areas of value and achieve higher margins and more profitability.
I could not agree with Brooks more. In my work I make a distinction between Incremental Innovation (staying ahead of the competition), Differentiating Innovation (distinguishing yourself from the competition) and Game Changing Innovation (creating new platforms for competition).
But what we have come to know is that each form of innovation requires a different set of circumstances and conditions (level of corporate ambition/fear, leadership, tools/techniques, skills/capabilities and culture). A company that is focused on efficiency and is very inwardly oriented will have little chance to develop Creative Monopolies. Also, a company that is satisfied with marginal growth will kill Game Changing ideas.
This is why I feel it is very important for an organization to have defined its level of Innovation Ambition and made it clear to those involved in this work. A way to do this is to: 1. Define for your company the levels of innovation, 2. Set targets for each category (i.e., what percentage of your innovation budget will be spent in each level), 3. Give individuals the skills and tools they need to accomplish the goals in each level (i.e., the skills and tools needed for Incremental Innovation are not sufficient for Game Changing Innovation or Creative Monopoly development which will require much more customer centric and empathic research techniques.
I like the distinction Brooks makes; I just don't think most mature companies have the where with all to explore "Creative Monopolies".
His assertion is that if we are only competing then our ideas will be incremental at best and if we look to create that that has not to date been created (monopolies in this sense) we can define new areas of value and achieve higher margins and more profitability.
I could not agree with Brooks more. In my work I make a distinction between Incremental Innovation (staying ahead of the competition), Differentiating Innovation (distinguishing yourself from the competition) and Game Changing Innovation (creating new platforms for competition).
But what we have come to know is that each form of innovation requires a different set of circumstances and conditions (level of corporate ambition/fear, leadership, tools/techniques, skills/capabilities and culture). A company that is focused on efficiency and is very inwardly oriented will have little chance to develop Creative Monopolies. Also, a company that is satisfied with marginal growth will kill Game Changing ideas.
This is why I feel it is very important for an organization to have defined its level of Innovation Ambition and made it clear to those involved in this work. A way to do this is to: 1. Define for your company the levels of innovation, 2. Set targets for each category (i.e., what percentage of your innovation budget will be spent in each level), 3. Give individuals the skills and tools they need to accomplish the goals in each level (i.e., the skills and tools needed for Incremental Innovation are not sufficient for Game Changing Innovation or Creative Monopoly development which will require much more customer centric and empathic research techniques.
I like the distinction Brooks makes; I just don't think most mature companies have the where with all to explore "Creative Monopolies".
Labels: creative monopoly, david brooks, facebook, innovation, innovation management, pay pal, peter thiel
posted by Sutherland on Innovation at 7:19 AM
|
0 comments
