If one believes in the Darwinian theory of evolution, then one knows that evolution has no purpose. It occurs randomly in multiple places, irrespective of whether evolution occurs at other places.
Survival of the fittest in biological evolution is also an established fact. Genetic evolution and mutations drive evolution further. If mutations and adaptations happen slowly, then evolution happens slowly. Powerful natural or biological events may lead to accelerated evolution. I believe most of the evolution is slow and involuntary and happens at the subconscious and genetic level. The visible effects in higher species may take centuries or millennia to be visible.
One might wonder what evolution has to do with innovation. Well, innovation at times has a purpose, and at times, it happens quite accidentally. Innovation, I am sure, happens at multiple locations and is driven by organisations, teams and individuals.
The perceived value and improvement in a product or service, when projected in light of innovative features, accentuates the sense of innovation.
There is a thin line between what is an innovation and what is a natural evolutionary improvement, marketed internally or externally as an innovation.
The real question is, who identifies an innovation? Who certifies an innovation? Who benefits from the innovation? What is the impact of an innovation? What is the purpose of innovation? Do all innovations come to light? When does an innovation stop? Can an innovation be used without publishing it and do we adopt all innovation? Can innovators be made, or are they born? Are all innovations fair? Are all innovations desirable? Can innovations be governed? What is the purpose of innovation?
In an increasingly industrialised capitalist world, innovation is more often than not meant to benefit the customer as the customers buy in and pay a premium for an innovative product or service. The premium thus benefits the innovator. This scenario creates a win-win situation.
The internet is full of definitions of what an innovation is. More often than not, innovation implies that there is a business connection. Business innovations come to light and get rewarded monetarily and fame-wise, while millions of innovations go by without drawing anyone’s attention.
A really creative teacher may come up with a method or process for improving the grades of a student or class. They may demonstrate a scientific experiment in an extremely innovative way.
I remember one of my lady teachers cutting her hair to stick a beard on my teenage face as make-up for my face in a mono-act competition where I was playing an old man with a beard.
A caring nurse may use an extremely innovative approach to bring smiles to an ageing, ailing and depressed patient.
On the other hand, a doctor may use an out-of-the-box method or procedure deviating from standard operating theatre procedures as a last resort to save a life and may never use it again.
A pilot may land a plane on the river, and everyone will call it anything but innovative. It was called daring, rare, unnecessary, foolish or stunt, but I did not hear the adjective innovative for that act.
Any improvement in a product or service for the human good is innovation. Not all innovations are made equal, nor are they rewarded equally.
In my opinion, innovation for only the product or service provider’s benefit may not be desirable. Building products that do not last or forcing consumers to change and buy a newer version is NOT innovation. Any medicine or vaccine meant to alter the natural condition of a patient is NOT an innovation. Any innovation that forces consumption without the knowledge of the consumer is not an innovation.
In short, if human good and fair value change is brought about by the knowledge of the customer or consumer, it is desirable innovation. The other name for unilateral benefit is deceit and manipulation or “non-innovation”.
Comments