This is an answer to a LinkedIn Question by Jennifer Haertling at Kraft Foods.
Interesting that so far the most commonly mentioned things are something along creative, ideas, inspiring, motivation, out-of-the-box. It seems to me that all of these ideas are more attributes of inventors, and not innovators, and are merely good, but not great.
I would describe myself as a creative out-of-the-box thinker with lots of ideas, but I’m not an innovator. Here’s why: “Innovators” for me have an “outside” proof that they can productize (or servicize, if that word exists) a concept that addresses a need of a market. You might have noticed that the word “new” is missing. I get to that later.
■
OUTSIDE: I’ve seen many VC presentations that were claiming be the holy grail for problem XYZ. For me an innovator is defined by an “outside” evaluation: Just because you are claiming to have found a new way of doing things doesn’t mean that your prospect agrees with you. In that sense, you would only be “new”, but not innovative.
■
PROOF: hard-facts such as ROI, TCO, revenue, profit, reduced churn, number of sales, etc., and more soft-facts – though measurable – such as satisfaction, experience, peace-of-mind, …
Sometimes the difference between an idiot and an innovator is success.
■
PRODUCTIZE: something I can drop on your foot. Or, for that matter, something that helps you drop something on someone’s foot ;). I’ve seen many ideas and inventions; not all of them were innovations. It also means that it doesn’t need to be new, but that you were able to execute whatever it is you do that makes your “thing” tactile, sensible in the literal sense of the word. A tipping point might be the marketing approach, network of professionals, rolodex, enthusiasm, or timing, Latter one seems to be cited quite often by people who don’t really know or don’t want to take credit for why they actually succeeded with the most stupid idea or “old stuff”. Sometimes the difference between an idiot and an innovator is success.
■
NEED: You have to address a need, not just a problem. A COO might know that he is not very efficient in communication, but the real perceived issue for the COO is that the product development teams are producing flawed products. If you are just pitching a new inhouse chat solution to them, your solution might be recognized as “new”, or “helpful”, or “interesting”, but not as “innovative” within the COOs industry, because your solution addresses a problem below his I-Must-Take-Action-Threshold. If you spin your product to specifically address product development – maybe beyond quality control – the COO might have lots of “value” ready for you, with your “innovative” solution to help him achieve his goals and address one of his top needs right now – measurable.
■
ADDRESS: It’s fine if *you* think you addressed the need, but how about your target client (the “listening” aspect)? As for A,B,C,D it’s a *perception* thing: It doesn’t matter if your “thing” is addressing the client’s needs better, less, different, or at all, as long as it is perceived as such. Well, ok, if it is not addressing the client’s needs at all, maybe you won’t be that successful, but that’s a matter of your KPIs – lots of people were churning out millions of dollars for a guy that didn’t even remotely address their needs, but that brings me to the market:
■
MARKET might be a market of one or a billion; an existing industry or a one-time thing; it’s something that poses the opportunity to trade “values” with an expectation of a “win” from both sides. Guts, yes, but no need to be risky.
So maybe I’m an innovator, because I was able to commercialize some of my ideas and successfully sell my startup companies (which was rarely risky, btw). Now for the great: someone who can repeat that and maybe understands/feels what it takes to repeat things. Maybe process, maybe method, maybe tools, maybe something he/she cannot exactly point to. But they can repeat it, if they need to.
(and here I reached my limit of 4000 characters at LinkedIn)
