Disruptive? Radical? Discontinuous?  - Posted by Leslie Martinich

John Dvorak in "The Myth of Disruptive Technology" calls the "concept of disruptive technology" "the biggest crock of the new millennium."

He claims that "There is no such thing as a disruptive technology."

I grant that much has been made of disruptive technology, but I disagree with Dvorak's claim.

I consider the work done in this field in the last 5 years to be useful in conveying information to folks who might not have spent much time studying history. Innovations (new technologies) change (or disrupt) the way people do things. And they change (or disrupt) the way businesses operate.

And leaders are better off if they understand the dynamics of technology and change.

Other terms used to describe the same phenomena include "discontinuous" or "radical" innovations. And we can find the same sorts of dynamics at work, whether we use one term or another. There is plenty of wonderful research on this topic, starting perhaps with Schumpeter, with the even scarier term, "creative destruction."

The term "disruptive" has some intimidating connotations. Perhaps it serves to catch the eye of the business leader who did not read economic history to notice what happened with moveable type, the telegraph, and 18th century navigation aids.

Fundamentals of Innovation - Survey  - Posted by Renee Hopkins

I've been participating in Joyce Wycoff's Global Innovation Study Team project, which has its own fascinating blog.

You can still participate -- one way is to take the online survey on innovation that is currently available. Here's the invitation from Joyce:

Greetings! We'd like to pick your brain about innovation in order to help an international project team that is writing a report on the Fundamentals of Innovation.

This is a brief, simple survey, but will be very helpful to the process of identifying the bedrock of innovation. If you are part of an organization that is larger than 10 employees, please respond at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=48203548538

We'd also appreciate your help in sending this survey to other innovation folks in other organizations. We've already had more than 250 participants, and would love to have more. Plus, when you take the survey, you will find out how you can receive a copy of the report once it is finished in mid-October.

One other question that we'd love to hear your thoughts on (regardless of the size of your organization) is:

What are the absolute *fundamentals* of innovation -- those things that if we didn't do them or if they aren't in place, organizational innovation has little possibility of succeeding? You can respond to this question at mailto:question@thinksmart.com.

Thank you so much for your help! If you would like to be part of this project, send an email to mailto:innovation2004@thinksmart.com.

Conference Update: Innovation Convergence  - Posted by Renee Hopkins

Register for 10th Annual Innovation Convergence conference by August 20th and you can save $100 off the standard registration fees. Innovation Convergence, scheduled for September 26-29 in Minneapolis, has a big IdeaFlow-related presence: Joyce Wycoff is the conference chairperson, and she and both Henry Chesbrough and John Wolpert will be speaking.

At Innovation Convergence you can explore the latest innovation processes, tools and structures, and learn new ways to generate and implement breakthrough ideas that create value and enhance sustainable growth at your organization. Other speakers include Tom Kelley from IDEO, Larry Keeley, Steve Denning and many more.

Register to attend at www.iirusa.com/convergence or call 888-670-8200.

Note: IdeaFlow is a media partner for Innovation Convergence; if you register because you found out about it from us, please let them know!

Interdisciplinary Patent Analysis  - Posted by Renee Hopkins

I've been involved in an off-blog conversation with John Wolpert and several other people about patents and patent analysis. The initial question, which stemmed from the Business 2.0 article A Patent Popularity Contest, was can a patent be valued based on the number of patents that cite it?

I'm on my way to the airport, but wanted to post John's more specific question: Has anyone seen any studies on how often an invention in one domain turns out to be a core element of a solution in a domain for which the invention was not originally intended?

Suggestions and comments welcome!