Uncertainty Avoidance to Avoidance Accommodation
On of the first frameworks developed for understanding innovation and technology and its relation to the economy has been the linear model of innovation. The model proposes that innovation starts with basic research, then adds applied research and development, ending with production and diffusions:
Basic research Applied research Development Production and Diffusion
The model has been very influential. Academic organizations, economist, expert advisors and policy-makers have justified this model pushing linear innovation techniques to spur innovation in many different settings. However over the recent years a new model has been transcribe challenging the make up of what was previously consider the model to spur innovation. Some have even dubbed that the linear innovation model as dead, “Everyone knows that the linear model of innovation is dead” (Rosenberg, 1994). This new model is known as the cyclic model for innovation including both invention and innovation cycle with input from many sources.
To further understand the need for the innovation model to move from uncertainty avoidance to an uncertainty accommodating model we must look into the three main linear models. The waterfall, funnel and vat models are well defined linear innovation models. The water fall model which is one of the most restrictive in design compared to the other linear models. “The model starts with a well-defined project goal, timeline, and project plan… At the end of each stage, the project moves through a gate, or review process to the next phase (or from a pool of water down a waterfall to the next pool of water)” (Schoen, 2005). While the funnel and vat models are not as strictly defined as the waterfall model they imply a very linear process. “These two models have a linear time component like the waterfall model. As time progresses one singular goal remains in mind and, eventually, possibilities are narrowed to an outcome originally defined at the projects initiation” (Schoen, 2005). These models are great if you know the outcome that you want however this does not truly represent the heart of innovation. Innovation is a cyclical process of constant improvement where the outcome is not defined at the beginning of the processes. In innovation the outcome is constantly redefined as the process continues to further meet the customer’s needs and wants.
The cyclic innovation model takes the predefined outcomes of the funnel, vat and waterfall models and throws them out the window. Since the spiral (cyclic) model depends on an ambiguous outcome requiring constant input from the market to help drive the outcome. “In this project model, trips around an auger-like spiral work to delve progressively deeper into a customer’s (market’s) requirements. Each trip around is similar to a waterfall, in that goals for that spiral have a definition, yet the outcome of the project is not necessarily clear from the beginning” (Schoen, 2005). Each stage is not final and the outcome is feed more input from outside forces of the market leading to a new level of cognitive reasoning.
Using the cyclic model is crucial in innovation development in this day and age. With the advent of the internet consumers have a wealth of information at their hands creating ambiguous requirements and expectations since they are influence by information from all over the globe. The spiral model allows companies to take a loose idea, trend or market segment and drilldown the product or service to constantly meet the changing requirements of the consumers. Organizations cannot predefine the outcome of a project and force sell to consumers anymore since consumers have a plethora of choices by competitors. Utilizing an uncertainty accommodating innovation model allows companies to have a deeper understanding of their target market’s needs and wants while constantly developing a product that can shift with their demands. “More and more, innovation comes, not from the triumph of big science (important as it is in removing physical constraints to innovation), but from the triumph of contrarianism (which leaps over the mental constraints)” (Hamel, 2000). The main importance of the spiral model is furthering the idea that research and review processes does not absolutely lead to innovation.
Luck or what I like to call sometimes divine intervention has a large role in the process. Innovation is not simple and by definition cannot be put into a box since the concept of innovation is breaking preconceived boundaries. Allowing ones mind to accept the unknown is the first step in any project that is set to be innovative. The human race has made dramatic improvements in the world through innovation and now it is time to take a step back and realize that we need to be innovative about how we view innovation.
Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York: Doubleday.
Rubinstein, M., & Firstenberg, I. (1999). The minding organization: Bring the future to the present and turn creative ideas into business solutions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
N. Rosenberg (1994), Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics, and History, New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 139.
J. Schoen (2005), The Innovation Cycle: A New Model and Case Study for the Invention to Innovation Process, Engineering Management Journal; Sep2005, Vol 17 Issue 3, p3-10, 8p.
