Pauline's excellent post prompts me to suggest a new agenda item for your
session --- Innovation Survival Training.
I think arriving at a state via innovation differs considerably from moving
the innovation into usage, especially general usage. The dual is a look at
the many ways people devise to quash innovations.
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:47:10 -0400
> From: Pauline Assenza <
forward@snet.net>
> Subject: Re: Why invent new definitions: Re: Definition of Innovation
>
> Gary:
>
> [...] Malcom Gladwell's little book The Tipping Point (2002)
> where he shares stories about how ideas and trends become adopted or where
> isolated events can trigger "epidemics" through 3 processes he suggests
> called "the law of the few'' (sometimes only a few influential people are
> necessary to spread the word, or the infection, if you will), "the
> stickiness factor" (it makes a difference the way a concept is worded or
the
> way a social construct is presented to others ) and "the power of context"
> (being in the right place at the right time is sometimes necessary to
create
> a critical mass). The idea is to "persuade" (others have suggested to see
> also the work of Robert Cialdini and his book, "Influence").
>
> Since you will be expected to include a discussion of "innovation
> management", it seems to me that suggestions for marketing or diffusing
> ideas or persuading adoption of innovations is critical for the
perpetuation
> of innovative activity? Innovators may need to be rewarded by having their
> innovations actually become useful.
>
> The definition may be important for its utility as well as its descriptive
> validity.
>
> Pauline Assenza
>
forward@snet.net
>