Can Innovation Be a Science

At a recent conference at which I was speaking, an audience member asked if I could define “innovation science”. Although I had the answer it made me consider the very definition of innovation science and the definition I have been working with for several years. Some would say the term “innovation” is overused today, describing everything from self proclaimed “innovation coaches”, to products. It is freely thrown out in cyberspace, written about in books and journals, and boldly proclaimed by companies in television and radio commercials. Innovation is discussed as something we find in design, engineering, behavior and even in music. It seems that everyone and everything is suddenly “innovative”. So, with all the confusion and exaggerated claims about innovation, how can one define Innovation Science? I would argue that this is precisely why innovation science is so important today. Innovation is a difficult concept to define, but any domain can benefit from it. It can encompass and be enhanced by many disciplines, and if done correctly - should be. In many respects, innovation can and should be defined by the ability of an organization, individual or culture to create and provide linkages between many diverse and often unrelated domains and specialties – to create a new net good. If you will, the innovator is the polymath of the information age. Today’s interconnected communication infrastructure (global internet) enables a person, culture or organization to reach across many diverse disciplines, that in the past may have only incidentally worked together – creating a new breed of innovator. Yesterday’s “Renaissance man” is today’s “Innovator”. But in an age of hyper specialization how can one individual claim to be a Polymath, Homo Universalis or Renaissance man (or woman)? The traditional definition of these terms, is as an individual who is well educated, or at least excels in many subjects or fields. Have we had a Leonardo DeVinci in the 20 th or 21 st Century? We have geniuses, such as Einstein, but have we seen any real Polymaths? Perhaps the world is too complicated for any individual to be an expert at many things. I would argue however that perhaps we are in a new Renaissance - the “age of innovation” - where technology can enable an innovator who could not be an expert at everything, to access whatever information he or she needs to be a “virtual expert” at many things. So, Innovation Science would therefore be the process whereby an organization, an individual or a culture learns to use innovation tools and techniques to embrace an ideal of change. An ideal that is only possible at this point in history. One where anyone with an inquisitive mind and a moderate degree of intelligence has at their disposal many times the combined knowledge that had been available to Leonardo DiVinci, with a few simple keystrokes and an Internet connection. The Internet, advanced computational systems and software programming enable the acquisition of vast amounts of knowledge. Innovation Science supplies theories, processes, methodologies and tools to organize and exploit this knowledge store. The successful innovator will utilize the tools of Innovation Science to organize the vast knowledge stores into something of value; an innovation. It allows someone with a great idea to research the idea, organize their thoughts, assemble the needed resources, perform market analysis and develop the complicated algorithms necessary to bring the idea to the world; something that would have been difficult to do without vast corporate resources just 20 years ago. After a century of hyper specialization, the Polymath may once again be in a position to contribute to positively change the world. Long live the “Age of Innovation” and the new “Renaissance Man