INNOVATIVE IS ACCOMPLISH A GIVEN TASK IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY BY INVENTING SOMETHING OUT SIDE THE PARAMETERS OF THE TASK

“So when you look carefully at the definitions, there is in fact no essential difference between creativity and innovation. Not for anyone who takes either of them seriously. Everyone basically agrees on the importance of ideas + action and novelty + value. From this angle, arguments about the superiority of innovation to creativity start to look like macho one-upmanship”

As far as superiority goes, I agree that there is no NEED to define the difference between creativity and innovation. But what if we view the issue from a different angle? What if we temporarily forget about the words “innovative” and “creative”, and focus instead on…

ideas?

action?

novelty?

value?

Is there a NEED to define the cognition/synthesis of an idea separate from the cognition/synthesis + action? Similarly, is there a need to define ideas that are novel versus ideas that are both novel and have value?

What if a member of our creative team produces content that has 3 of those 4 points? Do we tell them, “you’re creative/innovative minus that value bit at the end?” Do we use the words creative or innovative to describe this situation at all? Are there words other than creative or innovative that we can use to more accurately describe the situation?

For me, there IS a need to define the two things separately… because, well… I like use a single word to describe the situation… it saves me a lot of time

Now the question becomes, which words do we use? Unless there is an official “word definition committee” that we can submit a review request to… I don’t think it matters as the two are already being used interchangeably. I think the trick is to know what you NEED it to mean… make sure this definition is in alignment with your team… then use it accordingly.

For myself… I lean a bit more toward the definition provided at the beginning. Why? Well, it just seems to be how the majority of people are using it, and I spend less time having to align my definition with theirs.

I have rarely heard a painting described as innovative, but I have heard it described as creative. And I have more frequently heard that new all-in-one “blender/pancake-flipper/baby-diaper-changer” product defined as innovative.

I’ll reply to your question with Mark’s permission. Hi Mark, great post by the way. For me, Hugh and Levitts beautifully summed it up.

For the past 10 years I have been flirting with creativity (and innovation) whether in the artistic, scientific and legal field. I have been a scientific inventor and an innovator in the legal and artistic field. Now I also teach what I have learnt (as a creativity coach) and I also write about it.

I personally cannot come up with an innovation without first thinking creatively. I need to enter my creative state of mind and search for creative sparks, hints, analogies or metaphors. Very often most of the ideas are not worth pursuing. Sometimes some ideas might seem interesting at first sight, but are hard to apply or far from being appropriate or useful. Then, there are those ideas that seem to fit perfectly with what you are looking. You still have to work on them a bit to match perfectly what you are looking for. Now, if my idea is a completely new product, you’ll call it invention. If the idea improves on an existing idea or process, you’ll call it innovation.

Whether it’s an invention or an innovation, everything starts from my creative state of mind.

Don’t get caught up with definitions if you really want to create and innovate, you’ll end up spending all your time defending positions and feeling happy that you know the meaning, at least on paper.

We are all different and not all techniques apply to everybody. Techniques that work for me might not work for you. The only way to know is to put them into practice and see for yourself. Creating should be a fun process, though I don’t disagree it can be painful when you become too strict with yourself. But it’s great fun.

Haven’t answered your question as it would be as long as the whole chapter in my book – Discover Law Through Art : Combining Art, Science and Law to stimulate Creativity.

Valuable ideas and their implementation both are important and complementary to each other. Value can be achieved only be using both as complements to each other. We really cannot say that one is more important than the other.