Thinking about Life Sciences: On Innovation Part I: Innovation is Not the... http://blog.aesisgroup.com//2007/09/17/innovation-is-not-the-same-as-inv...

Thinking about Life Sciences

http://blog.aesisgroup.com

Monday, September 17, 2007

On Innovation Part I: Innovation is Not the Same as Invention

In the first part of a three-part series on innovation, we discuss innovation and distinguish it from invention.
The second and third parts will discuss the elements of fostering innovation and accelerating development.
Innovation vs. Invention
Consonant with the etymological origin of the word, “innovation” implies the creation of something new. In
this regard, innovation is often equated with invention. However, the two definitions – innovation and
invention – have been evolving and it has been recently appreciated that these two should, in fact, be regarded
differently.
As Jan Fagerberg wrote in his 2004 article “Innovation: A Guide to the Literature:”
“An important distinction is normally made between invention and innovation. Invention is the first occurrence of an
idea for a new product or process, while innovation is the first attempt to carry it out into practice.”
Innovation as the Realization of Invention
What is captured in this definition is the concept of innovation being the actualization or realization of an
invention whether it be societal benefit, commercialization, market entry or monetization. One cited cause of
the dot-com bust was that while some of the software developed may have been quite inventive, such
brilliance was not balanced by sustainable business models to make such inventions commercially viable.
Clinical medicine likewise is replete with inventions that failed market entry for any number of reasons such
as lack of physician adoption, over-complexity, safety concerns, non-interoperability.
Just like “art for art’s sake,” “invention for invention’s sake” may be intellectually and aesthetically pleasing
but having a substantial societal impact is another thing entirely.
That is the job of innovation.
Innovation as combinations of Inventions
There is another crucial distinction between invention and innovation that is not often appreciated. Unlike
invention, which often concerns a single product or process, innovation typically involves a combination of
products and processes that allow the successful translation of “new ideas into tangible societal impact” as USC
Stevens Institute for Innovation executive director Krisztina Holly once put it.
One example is the iPod which as a stand-alone product is really not very inventive. MP3 players had been
around for several years before the iPod. While there may be unique hardware and software aspects to the
device the fundamental invention of having a handheld MP3 player was not at all new.
What made the iPod truly innovative was its combination of aesthetic design, elegant ergonomics and
ease-of-use. Perhaps most important, the creation of the iTunes software and website enabled listeners to
actually use their now “easy-to-use” iPod. It was the combination of all of these elements that made the iPod
truly innovative.
Examples of Innovation
One of the greatest examples of innovation and a case study for how to foster innovation and accelerate
development was the IBM PC. As an innovation that changed the nature of the computer industry and

1 of 3 11/17/2008 12:35 AM
Thinking about Life Sciences: On Innovation Part I: Innovation is Not the... http://blog.aesisgroup.com//2007/09/17/innovation-is-not-the-same-as-inv...

society more generally, most will not doubt the profound innovation and significance of the IBM PC. The
history of this is nicely summarized by Tom Hormby.
It may not surprise you that the IBM PC at that time did not contain any new inventions. What may surprise
you, however, is that the IBM team – under pressure to complete the project in less than 18 months – was
under explicit instructions not to invent anything new. The goal of this project - code-named “Project Chess”
- was to take off-the-shelf components and bring them together in a way that was user-friendly (at least by the
standards of those days), inexpensive, and powerful enough for “home use.”
To some extent, the process by which IBM (which is ordinarily quite bureaucratic) created the IBM PC was
an innovation in its own right. IBM innovated around its own processes by creating a small team composed
of individuals from multiple disciplines, cutting out much of the bureaucracy and blinkered focus that would
have been otherwise applicable, licensing technologies from outside companies (e.g. Microsoft and Intel) and
a completely new marketing model of advertising computers on TV. When I received my first IBM PC in
1982, it even came with a comprehensive packet of information on how to contribute software applications –
what may have been, in retrospect, the first incarnation of open-source development!
To some extent, then, while the IBM team did have to be inventive (indeed it invented little on the hardware
and software side), they did invent new development and marketing processes. Indeed, while innovation is
not the same as invention it is difficult to be truly innovative without any invention.
So one can see then that:
· Innovation is not the same as invention
· Innovation does not require invention
· However, invention can contribute to innovation
Impediments to Innovation
By corollary, the IBM PC example also highlights what can be considered to be impediments to innovation.
One can imagine, for example, that the project would not have been successful if there was excessive
corporate input, an unwillingness to change focus, an inflexibility towards change, a lack of interdisciplinary
expertise and a lack of the big picture on the ultimate arbiter of innovation: market adoption.
Having the right people is also critical.
Thomas J. Watson, Sr. – the venerable chairman of IBM and an industry genius in his own right was once
famously quoted as saying in 1943: “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” He helped
build IBM to become the giant that it was but he certainly may not have been the right person for Project
Chess.
To the extent that the market adoption of the IBM PC exceeded all expectations and indeed went way beyond
IBM itself is testament to the wildly successful innovation that it was.
And, perhaps most importantly, with the fact that most economists would agree that innovation is ultimately
the fundamental driver of productivity growth and to the extent that many believe the 1990s productivity
boom in the U.S. was at least partially driven by desktop information technologies, then all of us can attribute
some of our present standard of living to that prescient, mundane PC of an innovation.
The next article in this series will highlight the opportunities and challenges involved in fostering innovation.
Stay tuned …

Ogan Gurel, MD MPhil

gurel@aesisgroup.com
http://blog.aesisgroup.com/

2 of 3 11/17/2008 12:35 AM
Thinking about Life Sciences: On Innovation Part I: Innovation is Not the... http://blog.aesisgroup.com//2007/09/17/innovation-is-not-the-same-as-inv...

Innovation Invention Definition of Innovation Innovation vs. Invention What is Innovation? Aesis Research Group Ogan Gurel

3 of 3 11/17/2008 12:35 AM