Part 1: Definitions (10/23)
Part 2: iNPD model (11/06)
Part 3: Innovation Matrix – Categories of Innovation
Part 4: Innovation Matrix – Areas of Innovation (01/05)
Part 5: Innovation Matrix – Overall
Part 6: Process

Not all innovations are created equal. And likewise not all innovations should be treated equally. So in order to succeed different kinds of innovations must be handled differently. That is neither novel nor controversial. The sticky part comes when we try to define how innovations differ and map these differences to specific handling strategies.

I have recognized roughly 4 kinds of innovation: sustaining, incremental, breakthrough and disruptive. Some of these categories probably sound familiar, and you likely have some established notions of what they mean. Just for a moment though, suspend your own notions and just try to see innovation according to the following.

* This model is definitely a work in progress, and some of my definitions are the result of playing with free associative analogy.

It is important to note that there is a lot of grey area and overlap between these categories. So try not to think of them as distinct and separate buckets. Rather try to think of them more like different areas of a landscape all blending into one another at the edges.

It is also important to note that this model is not on a scale from dull to sexy, from good to better or from less value to more. No one category is necessarily any better or worse than any other. They are simply different and deserve to be handled as such. This is often ignored for the rhetorically dramatic effect of using the language of disruption to make things sound more important. I’m working on formalizing some objective criteria to help guide categorization to help avoid such hyperbole.

But categorizing innovations correctly isn’t the point. Categorizing innovations appropriately is. Why? Because the categories themselves don’t really matter. What matters is what they mean in terms of guiding development activity. Indeed these categories aren’t just for academic exercise—they are actionable. Each one maps to different evaluative criteria, rules of engagement, and as a whole provides the foundation for a kind of innovation risk portfolio management.

By evaluative criteria I mean the criteria by which teams can rank, prioritize and judge different innovations within the same categories in order to determine which to pursue and which to shelf. By rules of engagement, I mean the rules that guide the expectations and contributions of each discipline in the multidisciplinary iNPD team. And together these categories support innovation risk portfolio management by making explicit how much attention and how many resources the company is devoting to what levels of risk in terms of innovation.

There are serious risks related to inappropriately categorizing innovations. For instance, using inappropriate evaluative criteria would poison go-no-go decisions. And following inappropriate rules of engagement between the iNPD disciplines would put team members’ expectations and contributions at odds with what the innovation naturally demands. The results would be frustration, interpersonal conflict, loss of morale and inadequate diligence.

To complicate things the same innovation could arguably belong to multiple categories depending on perspective. For instance, from the perspective of Apple’s management and investors the iPod was a breakthrough, because it represents the company’s first step away from computing and into the very different consumer electronics world. However, from a consumer’s perspective it’s a purely sustaining device—the same functionality as dozens of other players, but in a much more distinctive and attractive package and hipper brand. So talk of categories should be mindful of whose perspective is driving.

Further Questions:

• If perspective is important to appropriately categorizing innovations, is there a way to standardize a list of common perspectives?
• Other associations for each category?