Comments on: Innovation by popular opinion – evolutionary or revolutionary?

By: Kevin Ertell

Kevin Ertell — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:44:37 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Matt. I definitely appreciate your point about not abandoning evolution for revolution, and I’m certainly not saying the two are mutually exclusive. I also agree that making a long term decision in a time of limited budgets it extremely difficult and risky. At the same time, no business model can exist forever and managers must constantly examine the model to determine if staying ahead of the competition is going to require a tweaking of the model or a complete overhaul. If a complete overhaul is required, the company could suffer in the short term in order to complete the overhaul.
I remember a few years back when Tiger Woods, who was already the best golfer in the world, decided he needed to overhaul his swing. He definitely lost some tournaments for a while before he came back with a roar. It was a gutsy move, but it worked. Businesses have even more on the line than golfers, obviously, and it’s certainly much more complicated to make such a decision and then execute it with a business. Nonetheless, as Alex pointed out in his slide presentation, it’s ultimately innovation or die these days. And as you pointed out, the world is changing so fast that we have less time than ever to adapt.

By: Matt Cushing

Matt Cushing — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:36:42 +0000

The question that immediately comes to my mind is – how many companies need a revolutionary idea versus getting all the evolutionary things right? So many companies are making such great strides in e-commerce that it is difficult for a company that was once in the lead in a given area to stay that way.
I found this while working at Tower Records where our search and navigation capabilities were quite advanced. However, as search engine companies included more integrated merchandising functionality, we quickly fell behind.
Table stakes for even competing in the e-commerce world keep rising as customers expect more and more. In a time of limited budgets, how does a company decide to undertake a revolutionary project, which I would expect to take longer and cost more as it has never been done before, or focus on taking what others have done and just trying to do it a bit better?
I’m all for the revolution, but it’s got to be balanced against the needs of maintaining a competitive site. Do you agree or disagree?

By: Kevin Ertell

Kevin Ertell — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:10:33 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Alex. Thanks especially for the link to your excellent slide presentation. You’ve got some really great thinking in there, and it’s nice to see we’re on the same page. I encourage everyone to take a look through Alex’s deck.

By: Alex Bernstein

Alex Bernstein — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:52:30 +0000

Interesting to see some of the big boys playing in the innovation sandbox. Personally I agree with Seth Godin that “ideas are worthless” and that execution is everything.
As an “incubator of record” we are often pulled in to play the official role of “outsider” and help create and execute innovative new ideas for big slow moving corporate clients.
While the modern day suggestion box is moving to the digital format, you are right to point out that it’s not much more than an open brainstorm if it’s not tied to real people inside the company that can make things happen. The impact will only happen if the best ideas are turned into actionable plans with a strong champion to make them come to life.
Just posted a deck on the topic, which is featured on the front page of Slideshare today. Peep it out. http://tinyurl.com/l9jjp8
Glad to see all that time inside the belly of a big corporation hasn’t dulled your senses. Keep the smart thinking coming, we need all we can get.