An introduction to ISmarts is in order. ISmarts is a revolutionary approach to innovation which is based on the recognition that the root of innovation is human intelligence. The ISmarts framework builds on several recent theories of intelligence, especially, the triarchic framework (Robert Sternberg) and the theory of multiple intelligences (Howard Gardner). Visit Vivekin Group for free articles and information. But here’s a brief overview.

The ISmartsâ„¢ Framework

A new manifesto titled Slow Innovation on the ChangeThis site caught my attention. The author, Derek Cheshire, a UK-based consultant, borrowing from the slow-food movement asks, “There is immense pressure to innovate quickly or to rush to market, but does this bargain of speed versus quality really benefit a company?” Instead, Cheshire suggests creating the “innovative company whose structure and culture are conducive to long-term growth and sustainability.”

This ties into the definitional chasm of innovation–is innovation evolutionary and revolutionary. As I have often argued, this is a false choice– innovation is certainly both incremental and revolutionary. Stephen Jay Gould came up with the controversial theory of “punctuated equilibrium”which describes evolution as long periods of evolutionary stability broken by shorter spurts of change.

Despite its controversy among evolutionists, I find punctuated equilibrium accurately descriptive of the most innovative companies. A culture of innovation in an organization provides the ground on which constant experimentation, a constant nudging of boundaries happen, and every so often, there is a breakthrough. Unfortunately, the paradigm of innovation being radical, non-evolutionary has so sublimated our innovation mindsets, that we have closed ourselves to the idea of both incremental and revolutionary innovation happening together. Matt May, a fellow Wharton alum, has a book on Toyota in which he finds that Toyota implements 1 million ideas every year. This is characteristic of an innovative company–many small, incremental, evolutionary ideas, and a few revolutionary ones that punctuate the equilibrium.

In the same vein, a couple of years ago, I read about a book called Business at the Speed of Molasses by Joey Reiman at Brighthouse. It doesn’t seem to have been published yet.

In an op-ed article in the San Jose Mercury, Krisztina Holly argues that the word “innovation” is overused to the point where it begins to lose its meaning. I agree. For Holly, “true innovation is the process of translating new ideas into tangible societal impact.” This broad definition is very appealing because it sidesteps (or encompasses) all the debate about “revolutionary and evolutionary innovation” or “disruptive versus incremental”One of the main things that I find missing in definitions, debates, understandings/misunderstandings about innovation is the “human dimension.” 200 years of the industrial age and a century of scientific management has made us blind to the driving force of innovation–human intelligence. From an intelligence perspective, at Vivekin Group, we use the following definition:

“Innovational capacity is the ability to solve new problems or create new products by adapting to a market, shaping it, or selecting a new market in order to best deliver business value.”

The three actions in the pursuit of novelty—adapting, shaping, and selecting markets—comprehensively cover innovation. An innovator will use intelligence to make the best choice among the three options depending on the operating context. Because the context in which an organization exists and operates continually changes over time, adaptation (incremental innovation), shaping (disruptive innovation), and selection (opening a new market) are all required for innovation.