Innovation has suffered extensively from the old mentality problem of being a highly creative process. While this in fact is very true and cannot be discarded, this leaves the room open to discard the hundreds of years of knowledge that has developed with years of experience and time.
Human ingenuity has always been enthralled and triggered by the concept of emulation and the combination. Emulation of concepts from the different engineering principles to increase the maturity of the software engineering disciple is one of the such great examples. Further more examples for combination, include the combination of the "bagging" principle with the "random subspace" to create the more efficient data mining algorithms, which demonstrates the power of combinational practice.
Having said this, when all these are seen in correlation with the innovation service demand from the clients across the IT providers, it can be extensively argued that in fact the Innovation Service that involves highly creative process and highly creative solution (should be seen in context of IT led innovations, excluding R & D and new product innovation ), are highly risk prone and are high risk inducing practices. With such risks implied solution and suggestion coming from an external third party provider ( i.e IT provider in this context ), the sustainability and applicability of the IT led innovative suggestions would be prone to highest probability of rejection. The IT service providers alien context, seemingly adversial nature of relationship concerned ( i.e. money out from client being money in to provider) would be highly likely seen as an attempt of milking the clients off their financial reserves i.e until and unless the IT providers could significantly guarantee the benefits, which seems to be an significant challenging issue.
Hence these exposes the innovation Service's origination and sustainability to two context.
1. When IT providers guarantee the benefits
2. When IT providers synthesize great innovation into processes to reapply in the new context.
With the first option very less likely and possible in only very few cases around, the second option would be the way to go forth. Not only would the process be likely followed upon, due to the proven track record it had had shown in the past, but also would the chances of success be greatly maximized. This can be explained with the plain simple fact, that can be illustrated with a quotation from Einstein
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, if this holds true , then its vice-versa should also hold true, i.e if you copy the same process that have led to great innovation over and over again, then we are more likely to get the same great results i.e innovation.
Such approach marketed as the innovation service would have a proven track record, to overcome the trust issue, will have the necessary guidelines procedures in place to follow through and hence would likely be greatly appreciated and would hence be the beginning of the dawn of the Innovation Service.
Human ingenuity has always been enthralled and triggered by the concept of emulation and the combination. Emulation of concepts from the different engineering principles to increase the maturity of the software engineering disciple is one of the such great examples. Further more examples for combination, include the combination of the "bagging" principle with the "random subspace" to create the more efficient data mining algorithms, which demonstrates the power of combinational practice.
Having said this, when all these are seen in correlation with the innovation service demand from the clients across the IT providers, it can be extensively argued that in fact the Innovation Service that involves highly creative process and highly creative solution (should be seen in context of IT led innovations, excluding R & D and new product innovation ), are highly risk prone and are high risk inducing practices. With such risks implied solution and suggestion coming from an external third party provider ( i.e IT provider in this context ), the sustainability and applicability of the IT led innovative suggestions would be prone to highest probability of rejection. The IT service providers alien context, seemingly adversial nature of relationship concerned ( i.e. money out from client being money in to provider) would be highly likely seen as an attempt of milking the clients off their financial reserves i.e until and unless the IT providers could significantly guarantee the benefits, which seems to be an significant challenging issue.
Hence these exposes the innovation Service's origination and sustainability to two context.
1. When IT providers guarantee the benefits
2. When IT providers synthesize great innovation into processes to reapply in the new context.
With the first option very less likely and possible in only very few cases around, the second option would be the way to go forth. Not only would the process be likely followed upon, due to the proven track record it had had shown in the past, but also would the chances of success be greatly maximized. This can be explained with the plain simple fact, that can be illustrated with a quotation from Einstein
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, if this holds true , then its vice-versa should also hold true, i.e if you copy the same process that have led to great innovation over and over again, then we are more likely to get the same great results i.e innovation.
Such approach marketed as the innovation service would have a proven track record, to overcome the trust issue, will have the necessary guidelines procedures in place to follow through and hence would likely be greatly appreciated and would hence be the beginning of the dawn of the Innovation Service.
