Invention : By spending time/money you get something new
Innovation : quantifiable gain from your idea/

Tesla spent money to create his inventions but was unable to monetize them. Innovators produce, market and profit from their innovations. Inventors may or may not profit from their work.

A closer look at the Latin origins of the two words would help to throw some more lights on the differences. Creative comes from the Latin creâre (to cause to exist) the ability to make something exist. On the other hand Innovate comes from the latin word innovare (to renew, alter) from novus ‘new’.

Both words have to do with novelty. However, with respect to principle of causality, creative is more radical in the sense that it’s primary focus is the fact of bringing into existence what did not exist before. The less the material cause, the more perfect it is as a creative act. Hence, creative act per excellence is that which brings something new into existence out of nothing (i.e. zero material cause) which we normally attribute to God only. Conceptually, creative tends to be blind towards other existence but focuses on the substance and accidents (qualities, etc) of the new “being”. Creativity in man has to do with his ability to bring into existence new ideas from within his spiritual (immaterial) self. The less the reference to other realities as material causes, the more perfect it is as creativity. It’s good to note at this point that, less reference to other things in existence does not mean that the latter cannot be source of inspiration for the new idea. Inspiration however does not imply share copying as new ideas are just that, new.

Innovation tends to have a reference to what already exists (way of doing things, what is done, etc). Often times, products of creative acts find their true ‘meaning’ in the context of association or interaction with other realities (created man finds it’s meaning in relation to God. Eve finds her meaning in relation to Adam and vice-versa). In the context of an organization, one can argue that it is more appropriate to talk of innovation as a corporate goal rather than creativity in the sense that, every new idea (creative) generated must find its ‘meaning’ in the context of the organization. Thanks to the new idea, the organization through an act of innovation can ‘alter’ the way it does somethings, ‘modify’ some products, ‘add’ some new products to the catalog (analogously, the addition of Eve to the human society is an innovation in the human society, while the fact of existence of Eve is a creative act), etc.

In summary, one can conclude that following the chain of causality, creativity gives rise to innovation. Innovative organizations are those that know how to make good use of creative minds to achieve it’s organizational goals in a more efficient and effective way. Creative minds alone will not take the organization anywhere.

Conclusion:

Innovation = creativity + appropriation of creativity output

Creativity is generating something new. Innovation however, is the practical application of creativity.

One not better than the other, rather a symbiotic relationship. There is value in not reaching a practical application and certainly value in something that results in what we call innovation.

As much as I appreciate your thoughts, I must disagree with the conclusions.

Seriously – thanks for sharing your conclusions and the link to your research. I can’t go along with such hard-and-fast distinctions as you make, but I think we’d probably agree on what constituted effective thinking and action.

And sorry for the delay in your comment appearing, it got caught in our spam filter.

Several of you mention the distinction between people and the process, which could be the theme of another article…

@Rosanne – Re the word innovation being ‘tossed around like confetti’, it reminded me of this, quoted by Chris Bilton at the start of Management and Creativity:

‘Creative’, ‘creation’, ‘creativity’ are some of the most overused and ultimately debased words in the language. Stripped of any special significance by a generation of bureaucrats, civil servants, managers and politicians, lazily used as political margarine to spread approvingly and inclusively over any activity with a non-material element to it, the word ‘creative’ has become almost unusuable. (John Tusa, On Creativity)

Semantically, it’s hard to argue a deep difference. But the connotations are definitely strong, as you’ve illustrated here. Interesting, though, if we actually look at a dictionary, it makes a distinction b/w innovative products and ideas, and innovative people. When talking about a person, it sounds no different than creative:

innovative |ˈinəˌvātiv|
adjective
(of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original : innovative designs | innovative ways to help unemployed people.
• (of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking : an innovative thinker.

In the end, I guess the value of this semantic back-and-forth is just a big reminder that it’s all well and good to be original, but you’ve gotta CREATE something with it.

Thanks for the though-provoking post, as always.

It’s funny that this whole post talks about talking and doing and nothing about doing and letting others do the talking. It’s all words. His cartoon is “create or DIE”, not “create or innovate”.

Peace.
@vinylart