Creative Destruction - observation

Sometimes, just sometimes, someone comes up with a good idea. They research and test the idea. They champion the idea, they prove that the idea benefits the firm financially, and eventually the company agrees to run with the idea.

Lets assume that the idea is the electronic replacement of a paper system that has a very high degree of errors in it.

The company cheers.

In implementing the idea the company are too scared to get rid of the paper system. They add the electronic system to the burden of the employees. Errors on the paper system go up. The electronic system succeeds.

The company cheers - or most of the company cheers

The final decision was that the company couldn't continue to use the electronic system as the papersystem became less effective. This had been proved.

Who are the destructive employees - and who are the creative employees? Is there a balance?

Realistic thinking?

How does anyone know that what they are thinking is realistic?

If you have done something before then you may think that you can repeat it.

The more different a line of thought is the more difficult it is for someone to be realistic.

Do entrepreneurs that have big ideas therefore lack some realistic judgment - or at least the first part of their business is to narrow the gap between reality and their expectations. If their expectations are compromised fully then the project will clearly be folded. If the information found supports the idea - then it may have legs.

On my mind are 2 aspects arising from this:

If there is a tendency to be overly negative then many projects will be killed

If there is a tendency to only look for conforming information - then every project will get the go ahead.

Therefore a screening system is needed. Unfortunately most screening systems rely on the past and not the future. They are also logical - and we are dealing with creative thought here.

Understanding the future market need is therefore a fragile process - and ignored by many in favour of today's products.

I would like to hear from anyone that finds that my above thoughts resonate with them. My e-mail is roger.croft@prdpartnership.com

Creativity and Innovation

Creativity as part of "creative destruction" is very much how innovation is defined below. In other words taking a new idea to a profitable execution in the market place. What is clear is that coming up with the idea (often seen as "creativity") is only part of the problem.

"The clear message is that just focusing on the breakthrough ideas do not make a company innovative. Respondents agreed that the most effective innovators were companies that engendered a risk-taking climate and continually worked at it. "Top innovative companies respect the demands of a constantly changing marketplace. What product is selling today can be easily eclipsed by technology and competition come tomorrow," explained Bodell. "They understand that innovation is a long term business practice, only as effective as the environment that sustains it," she added." March 2 2006 http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/03/02/1424995.htm

Adding in my own thought - perhaps individuals who are forming part of the innovation process do not have very formal systems, and that creativity or creative techniques can be used in order to form thinking, solve problems, get over hurdles, frame offerings, refining the opportunity, or finding new ways of working together. If this is true creativity is part and parcel of the innovation process - however you define it.