The innovation conundrum

When I started out trying to understand the complexities of international development well over 15 years ago, one thing struck me. The trick, I was often told, to increase chances of funding was to apply a liberal sprinkling of the words gender, scalable or sustainable into any project proposal. Donors apparently liked those words, however they were used.

I’m beginning to wonder if the same thing is happening today with the word innovation.

For organisations seeking to deploy technologies to put right social wrongs, innovation is the hottest date in town. If the solutions themselves are not described as “innovative” then often the organisations behind them are. Innovation hubs have sprung up across the developed and the developing world, seeking to create the perfect environment for innovation. There are books galore extolling the virtues of innovation in three, four or five steps, or how we might foster cultures of innovation. If only it were that easy.

Over the past few days I’ve read three separate articles, all of which touch on different aspects of the innovation phenomenon. They’re interesting on their own, and collectively, as examples of the various debates currently taking place. As with all things “development” (which is the hat I wear as I write this) there’s as much discussion about what things mean as there is real-world activity.

Harvard Business Review

On the Harvard Business Review blog, good friend Bright Simons focuses on the cost of innovation, and argues that low-GDP countries and smaller businesses are in danger of falling into an “innovation poverty trap” while their richer counterparts ride off into the distance. Cost may indeed be a barrier, but it would be wrong to assume that if we provided every resource you could possibly wish for that people would suddenly become innovative. Money doesn’t make you innovative, although for innovative individuals and companies it arguably helps. Some bigger companies have fallen from their perch at the height of their success, crucially at a time when they had peak resources available to innovate, including money. Take Nokia as a more recent example. (For more on why big companies fail, see the excellent “Innovators Dilemma” by Clayton Christensen).

Stanford Social Innovation Review

In the Fall 2012 volume of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Christian Seelos and Johanna Mair argue that innovation should not be the holy grail, and that instead “it is time to move from innovation as an ideology to innovation as a process”. In particular, they argue that a relentless focus on innovation as an outcome can undermine an organisation’s appetite for experimentation. This is particularly true when that experimentation may have a high chance of failure:

Although productive innovation does not always translate into desired outcomes or impact, systematic learning and building of a knowledge base about what works and what does not constitutes an important indicator for an organisation’s ability to innovate

Failing to recognise this carries a number of risks:

Glorifying innovation as the solution to social and environmental needs and problems has led to well-intended efforts to increase the population of social innovators and entrepreneurs. This certainly has its merits but it has come with a detriment to investments in established social sector organisations that operate at scale and that create value mainly through incremental improvements

The rampant rate of innovation in the commercial sector has provided risk and opportunity in equal measure for the non-profit world. The ICT4D toolbox is a lot bigger than it was two or three years ago, but as I like to point out in my numerous talks on appropriate technology, many of these new tools don’t yet work in the places where the need is greatest. Donors sometimes fuel the frenzy by their willingness to fund the next big thing, leaving us with ‘innovative’ projects such as “iPads for Africa” (this is one I made up a couple of years ago, but it may now exist in some form). Although these projects may look great in the glossy pages of an annual report, and sound incredibly disruptive, they look less compelling on the ground (where they largely fail).

Organisational Capacity to Innovate

The Rockefeller Foundation recently launched organizational capacity to innovate, a new website based on the findings of “Learning from Experimentation: Sustaining Innovation to Achieve Impact” (available as a PDF here). They focus on the importance of seeing social innovation as an outcome rather than a tool, and an ongoing process rather than a single moment of inspiration. Two organisations are used as case studies in the report – our very own FrontlineSMS, and Circle of Blue – both seen as good examples of building capacity for continuous innovation through experimentation. The report is particularly interesting because it covers organisational innovation as much as technological innovation. As I’ve written before, organisations themselves need to innovate (business models, organisational structures, funding, leadership, messaging, and so on).

Creative Advantage list over a dozen definitions of “innovation” on their website, and therein lies the problem. We need to be careful we don’t overuse the term to the point of it becoming meaningless, and that when we do we’re clear about what kind of innovation we’re talking about.

Further reading
Since drafting this post, the Stuff Expat Aid Workers Like blog has published a more critical, tongue-in-cheek critique of the development community’s emerging obsession with innovation. You can read their “#182 Innovation Tourette’s” post here.

71 thoughts on “The innovation conundrum

  1. Pingback: Veena Gowda
  2. Pingback: changefeed
  3. Pingback: changefeed
  4. Pingback: Ken Banks
  5. Pingback: Marion McNabb
  6. Pingback: Russell Watkins
  7. Pingback: Linda Raftree
  8. Pingback: Carolyn Florey
  9. Pingback: Tom Hodge
  10. Pingback: Hapee de Groot
  11. Pingback: DearLadybug
  12. Pingback: DearLadybug
  13. Pingback: Ritse Erumi
  14. Pingback: Annabelle Simmons
  15. Pingback: Opey Akinlolu
  16. Pingback: giulio quaggiotto
  17. Pingback: Isabelle Cholette
  18. Pingback: Victor d'Allant
  19. Pingback: Raymond June
  20. Pingback: Paul Ellingstad
  21. Pingback: Kagiso
  22. Pingback: UNDP-CDG
  23. Pingback: Ifoda Abdurazakova
  24. Pingback: Fabrizio Andreuzzi
  25. Pingback: laylo.fotikh
  26. Pingback: UNDP Uzbekistan
  27. Pingback: Jessica L Lucas
  28. Pingback: Ken Banks
  29. Pingback: RajilVEMBE
  30. Pingback: Aricent Group
  31. Pingback: HURIDOCS
  32. Pingback: Sekitarkita
  33. Pingback: Ken Banks
  34. Pingback: Joshua D. Johnson
  35. Pingback: Solar Sister
  36. Pingback: jedibfa
  37. Pingback: Ian Thorpe
  38. Pingback: Tom Bollyky
  39. Pingback: Samuel Loewenberg
  40. Pingback: Chris Diehl
  41. Pingback: TechChange
  42. Pingback: Cindy Bailie
  43. Pingback: Susan Shiroma
  44. Pingback: Ken Banks
  45. Pingback: Dominic Campbell
  46. Pingback: Sarah Pseudonym

Comments are closed.