Comments on: The Difference between Strategy and Innovation

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:23:20 +0000

Great points Mark!

- Thanks.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:55:46 +0000

Greg: It is worth noting that the number of comments on this topic is somewhat significant. I think that points to the importance of this topic as well as the degree that we all have some opinion of what a strategy is and what it does. Your post is cogent and spot on. In the chat #hcsm the discussion frequently talks about SM as a strategy and not a tactic. There are few of us who try to correct that. SM (i.e. Twitter, FB etc) is just toys for execution. In reality it is the goal and subsequent strategy that dictates a tactic. In fact in learning/education/medicine I would say that you identify a goal first and what are your outcomes you want to achieve (how will you measure success). And then back into a strategy and tactic. But I may be pushing my limited IQ with that process.

Just to dramatize strategy etc. My wife was a creative director at a medical ad agency. I was the lowly AE. Whenever I wrote a creative brief to begin the creative process I would be beaten if the strategy was not clear, concise and brief. Or if it was stupid. The real test of a strategy at least in communications and marketing is to see if a creative director can create an ad or message easily that captures that strategy. I would say look at the Apple Ads Chiat/Day (I’m old school with them) is given and develops strategies that just scream for excellent creative execution. We’ve all seen dumb ass ads. Those are from dumber assed strategies. Everyone should learn to write strategies at the feet of creative directors.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:25:26 +0000

Thanks Max!

I think you make a good point that failure is not an objective of innovation, but it is an expectation.

Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan recently failed in their risk management strategy. It cost them billions. As I noted above, Edison failed thousands of times and made a mint. I think that’s a crucial difference.

I also think the concept works well as a litmus test. When someone says they want to innovate, they should have some expectation of failure. When you build a strategy, you know that there is some chance of failure, but you do everything you can to prevent it.

- Greg

By: Max Mckeown

Max Mckeown — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:14 +0000

Hi Greg – thanks for the very (as always) interesting post!

In my books, The Truth About Innovation ,i> and The Strategy Book and Adaptability , I use the following definitions:

“Innovation is a new idea made useful (by whatever means) while strategy is an attempt to shape the future (by whatever means)…”

Failure is the price of innovation rather than it’s objective. The objective of innovation is to make new ideas useful. This means that learning fast is better than failing fast. It’s possible to fail without learning, and it’s even possible (sometimes) to innovate without failing.

Strategy is about shaping the future. A failed business is not the same as a failed strategy. This is why Plan B matters most. My research and experience has taught me that a business that has a strategy that doesn’t work can learn from that, just like an innovator, and keep doing new things, big strategy changes and little strategy changes until they find something that works. Until they have adapted themselves or their situation successfully. All failure is failure to adapt, so the only strategies that really fail are those that fail to be adapted.

The difference between innovation and strategy is that innovation is, by definition, about new ideas, while strategy may (or may not) be new. The similarity between innovation and strategy is that they both involve the potential for failure, and they both require adaptation and learning to be able to succeed and keep succeeding.

Thanks again for a great post!

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:41:24 +0000

Thanks Dean. Sounds like you had fun:-)

- Greg

By: Dean Black

Dean Black — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:24:05 +0000

My PhD dissertation is about innovation in the military, circa 1972. I have come to appreciate how fascinating innovation can be. Reading these posts, and Greg’s excellent analysis I can see many people are as fascinated as me with these two topics. My interest broadened when in 2002 I was asked to help develop a corporate strategy for the Defense Department as a whole. That project was quite a challenge. Nevertheless, the project revealed to me more about innovation that is not evident at first blush. I now tend to see innovation as a word akin to, say, “soccer”, for example. I could easily choose “golf”, or “bowling”. This is not to say innovation is a game, and I hasten to emphasize it is much more than a “tool”, as one of our peers has suggested. The man whose approach to innovation helped me understand better what it is all about, was a man named James Bright. He explained the ten tactics of innovation. When you work your way through the ten tactics of innovation you realize innovation is like soccer, or golf; there are tactics, approaches and skillsets one needs to ensure the innovation succeeds, or the innovative process bears fruit. But, how does strategy fit in? I really have to agree with the one assessment herein that strategy is about choosing what not to do. At one point I used to think of strategy as a search for the most effective action verb that would describe how, where and when your company was going to do what it needed to do. However, action verbs are best left to mission statements. Instead, strategy is about identifying the imperatives – must dos – and the competencies – how best to do, mindful of one’s weaknesses – and the warnings – the better dos, mindful of what’s coming down the pike. To summarize, to me innovation is a vocation, or calling – the entrepreneur’s bailiwick or passion; while, strategy is venue or setting that speaks to methodology and context underpinning the effort.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:40:05 +0000

Thanks Denise. Passion is certainly a big part of it (and essential for emotionally dealing with failure). I’ve written more on that if you want to take a look: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2010/the-passion-economy/

- Greg

By: Denise

Denise — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:31:14 +0000

Great post! I really like the fact that you took your time and separate the two. There are indeed people who mix them up or believe they are one thing. I was one of them up to the point I realized innovation has more to do with passion and it basically grows out of it.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:15:27 +0000

Interesting ideas. Thanks Jean-Louis!

- Greg

By: Jean-Louis

Jean-Louis — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:06:40 +0000

Hi Greg,
another interesting post. may i contribute a few thoughts.

Strategy might also be defined as the battles you don’t want to fight.

Innovation is too often confused with invention and/or discovery. I appreciate that you highlight the difference.

From my experience, innovation is a tool contributing to the coherence of a general strategy. A successful strategy needs a very well understanding of the business environment, the competition and own’s position on the product life cycle and company life cycle.

A one size fits all strategy or it worked before so it should work again is to be seriously evaluated with respect to the above paragraph. I like zero base strategizing when it comes to such important decisions.

best to all.