The ‘we’ in the question refers to the Indian IT industry.
I know there are people out there who would find this question offensive; but frankly that’s not the intention.
We had someone coming over to present a Capability Maturity model for innovation at our office. It had a staged representation, similar to CMM, which organizations could adopt to become more innovative. True, lot of effort was put in to that. I have also seen many other tools and techniques that promise to make innovative individuals and organizations. But most of the time, there is this uncomfortable feeling I have – NO. Something missing.
As the sessions ended last week, I was left thinking – will such models / tools / frameworks help Indian IT companies to Innovate. That lead to a more basic question – why aren’t we innovative?
Basic questions lead to basic answers and when the answer came, it was simple. In most of the Indian IT companies, people worked on products that they never get to use themselves.(I am just talking of product innovation here…)For e.g. they wrote application for a hotel reservation system, but never would use it as a customer. Or they wrote code for an expensive automobile which they will never drive. They write applications to process insurance claims, but never would use it themselves. And I think this is the most important condition for innovation – you need to feel, experience and connect to what you are trying to innovate on (and it is not to do with people not being innovative as we would like to believe. Try selling the same fellow an insurance policy, he will tear you apart with questions and other possibilities). In some cases, our engineers are separated from the end user by multiple intermediaries. So, what we are talking about as product innovation in service projects is trying to mimic something that would naturally occur to someone who is using it.
The scenario is changing. One possibility is the increasing presence in the domestic market (oh! Not Defense / ISRO projects, but some products that people can feel and use) and the other is more personal exposure to the markets that we cater to (Possibly this is the reason behind the strange phenomenon – Indians are more creative in US than in India..)
Once this happens (given the direction economies are moving, it wouldn’t be long), I think people will just become more innovative naturally. So should we wait or should do we need to create more processes / tools / models for innovation?
TRIZ India Community Blog 
Sajeev,
Since you are referring to the Industry as a whole, I think the straightforward answer is we “don’t think”. We have been brought up in a manner in which we were assessed on the basis of our ability to re-produce than to create something new, and changing that would take time. So, our educational system and our colonial past would have contributed in it’s own way.
Sajeev,
Thanks for starting this thread and sharing your view. Your point of feel, experience & connect of the product is something which I want to associate with interest & commitment from an individual/organization. In my view, while it might not be feasible to experience a product before it is ready(actually, innovative product will be evolved throughout it’s life cycle), it is essential to associate with the final objective(what it is, how it will be used, different features and so on). In this regard, I am posting my views on same topic from my personal blog.
—–
Innovation is now-a-days a buzzword and someone or the other is always talking about it. We should first understand what is ‘we’ in ‘Why don’t we innovate’? Whom does it refer to ? What is the scope of innovation here?. Although I am writing this based on my experience in IT, it can be applicable to any field.
The first thing we should ask is have we defined ‘we’ properly. Is it an individual or a team or an organization? It does make a difference since there has to be some owner who should drive it.The second is regarding the meaning of innovation itself. Is it a new idea directly leading to a product or service or any potential revenue generator or can it be a methodology or process which is claimed to add value to a product or service indirectly. Both these things should be very clear. The third thing is the commitment or seriousness in really innovating it. Is it because we want to be prepared for tomorrow to take on competition or do we need it to grow or survive or we want to do it just because it is a buzzword or someone else is doing it. Whoever is doing should be very clear and believe in it.
Any attempt for innovation should be goal driven and one should be clear why it is being done, what is that will be attempted to be achieved and how will it be sold in the market. This will form the core vision and all the stakeholders should deeply believe and feel it. Once a team is formed and trained with innovation tools & techniques, complete freedom & time should be given. One cannot merge this activity with something that a team is doing. For eg : If a team is involved in a project or working as innovation facilitating team, they cannot be owners of this exercise(They can however attempt to innovate but not with this purpose). So, essentially an investment has to be made and then thought process and idea generation should just be nurtured. It will take time and evolve and hence there has to patience.
My stand on innovation is that it is currently happening(without many people noticing) in an unstructured way at different levels(individual level or project level or even organization level) but it gets stuck at particular stage since there is no direction or proper goal set or even commitment. The innovation I am referring to can be small idea, smart way of doing things or doing it differently or a saleable service offering but all on a small scale level. Some examples include conceptualizing a design, automating a process, reusing things or a combination of things. I have seen this happening in bits and pieces and usually as a secondary activity of an individual purely out of personal interest. If we really want to innovate at a much higher level, we have to put a conscious effort, be serious, be committed and action oriented and give our best. There will be lot of bottlenecks in the way but that is what will make the journey interesting, challenging and finally rewarding. After all, there is buzz in the market that one who innovates will survive in the market! (although I think it might be one of the best ways but not the only way)…Thanks for your time in reading this.
—–
Raghavendra,
Well said. The innovation as a jargon is interpreted differently, and as you rightly mentioned, adding the “we” takes the entire notion to the super-system level, and everything happening at the sub-system (like a small idea, different way of doing things at the project etc) usually considered “good” work. The moment we remove the “we” and empower the “I”, we should start getting the answers.
I remembered an early posting of mine in this regard, the problem of “we”factor. http://trizit.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
Best,
Prakash
Prakash,
Thanks for bringing the super-system & sub-system level…I can associate it..Looks like TRIZ learning has started..& thanks for pulling out your nice post on “we” factor