“We have to become the change we want to see.” – Gandhi.
Do a Google search in innovation science or innovation science.
You won’t find much on Wikipedia in English and almost nothing in Portuguese.
In English, we have an international journal of innovation science.
A lonely group here and there.
In Brazil, I found almost nothing, only when I searched not for science, but for innovation theory, we came up with some articles:
SCHUMPETERIAN INNOVATION THEORY DEVELOPMENT
I keep wondering why since innovation is such a hot topic, it is probably one of the most used words in the corporate world today.
Everyone talks about innovation, but the facts show that we don’t get too deep into this topic.
Many would answer that innovation does not require science, and that there is no demand for this kind of thing.
However, let’s imagine that today we have professionals working directly with innovation, whether in operational or training innovation.
Let’s see the difference between two ways of working in innovation:
Operational innovation – development of innovative projects;
Formative innovation – preparing people to deal more adequately with innovative projects.
When we think of innovation training, which precedes operational innovation, I ask: What basic training do they receive?
Imagine jobs such as coordinator, innovation director, or innovation professor, what kind of training do they receive without specific knowledge?
So we have a demand for science that can help us understand the phenomenon of innovation.
What is the function of science?
Dr. Google tells us:
“Science – the organized body of knowledge acquired through observation, identification, research, explanation of certain classes of phenomena and facts, and their systematic and rational formulation.”
I don’t really like the definition and I will put my own definition:
“Science – an environment of progressive dialogue, using more logical ways of thinking, which seeks to detail the patterns of certain phenomena so that they can be dealt with more appropriately.”
Let us now turn to the definition of innovation, according to Dr. The Google:
“Innovation is the creation of something new, the introduction of novelties, innovation, re-creation. Innovation is always seen as synonymous with changes and/or improvements to something that already exists.”
Indeed, when we advocate the study of the science of innovation, we are talking, in other words, of the science of change.
What phenomenon should be studied in the science of innovation? All aspects related to human changes.
In this way we can define the science of innovation as:
The science of innovation focuses on creating a progressive environment for dialogue, using more logical ways of thinking, about human change.
Finally, it is essential to understand that there will never be a neutral or pure science of innovation. Each conceptualist will make choices within the potential philosophical crossroads found in the study of the phenomenon of human change.
Thus, every progressive environment for dialogue on innovation must be characterized by some kind of adjective to distinguish the kind of line it has taken, such as in economics, education or psychology.
As a phenomenon begins to be studied, so schools of thought are formed, which define different types of approach to it.
Of course, much of what we define as the science of dual-mode innovation can be accepted by most other schools of thought about innovation, but it is necessary to make clear that anyone who wants to delve into this field, as in any other, will have to make choices, whether they are conscious or unconscious.
Examining the various possible options is part of the Excellence Assessors’ job not only to:
To indicate the various possibilities of study in this field;
detail the characteristics and problems of each of them;
Explain why you chose one and not the other.
Thus, it is up to any science to organize the dialogue around a particular phenomenon, and to explain the choices it makes.
Let’s begin to organize the dialogue about change, through the various possible classifications.
From the perspective of the dimensions or layers of our innovation process:
Personal innovation – which seeks to analyze patterns and help individuals think and act better in the face of individual innovative processes;
Group innovation – which seeks to analyze patterns and help groups to think and act better in the face of innovative group processes;
Organizational Innovation – which seeks to analyze patterns and help organizations think and act better in the face of innovative organizational processes.
Civilizational innovation – which seeks to analyze patterns and help society to think and act better in the face of innovative civilizational processes.
From the point of view of our type of innovation:
Increasing innovation – which changes the way we act more than we think;
Disruptive innovation – which changes the way we think more than we act.
From our innovation drive point of view:
Inner innovation – which starts from the inside out;
Outside innovation – from the outside in.
From our civilizational innovation point of view:
Total innovation – when we have structural changes in a civilization, such as the arrival of new media, that require some sort of adjustment from people, groups, and organizations;
Meso or Micro Innovations – When we have situational changes in a civilization, such as the arrival of social, political and economic changes, that require another type of adaptation from people, groups and organizations.
Civilizational innovations are characterized as changes in the spontaneous order, which occur in a cooperative manner, without a definite center of radiation.
The main rules of bimodal innovation science:
The basis for the study of innovation science always begins with personal innovation, since there is no possibility of promoting changes without the participation of individuals in some way;
The basis of personal innovation is the study of the human mind, because it is the structural instrument of innovation, with which we think and act.
So we can say:
The center for the study of the science of dual-mode innovation is the human brain, focusing on how it works and how it can be used to facilitate change.
The study of innovation is the continuous reflection on the way of thinking and behaving, focusing on the human mind.
Many of the sciences today are used to help us innovate, but there is a lack of science that focuses specifically on facilitating change, integrating studies, research, and theories from all others.
Therefore, the goal of creating a dual-mode science of innovation is to raise awareness of how change can occur in the different layers of society: personal, collective, organizational and civilization and to create methodologies for doing this in a more appropriate way.
Having said that, what we are proposing to do here is not just to improve this emerging science, but to develop a particular aspect among the various options that we have in studying innovation.
Thus, it is necessary to describe that we are developing the science of dual-mode innovation, implemented in a specific research and learning environment, with choices made by some of the authors.
We will make conceptual choices among the possible choices and imagine the emergence of other aspects, which should also determine the behavior of their choices so that the choices made become clear to the customers.
Let’s see how the flag is organized:
Phenomenology – the study of the phenomenon itself;
Epistemology – the study of tools that support the study of the phenomenon itself.
In epistemology to study any phenomenon we have:
organizational epistemology – the various possible classifications of the phenomenon studied;
comparative epistemology – comparison of choices made by a school of thought in that science compared to others and their effects on related sciences;
Environmental epistemology – the effects of the type of progressive research and the learning environment in which science is developed;
Metaepistemology – Reflections on knowledge in general.
The way science is thought and organized is part of the choices that schools of thought make.
The more aware of the choices we make in studying phenomena, the greater the chance that they will come close to the facts.
In our case, we are distinguished by the bimodal science of innovation, which promotes a mixture of many notions of the past, such as Ayn Rand (1905 – 82), Marshall McLuhan (1911 – 80), Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973)), Friedrich Hayek (1899) -1992) and Thomas Kohn (1922-1996).
But this is the topic of the article “Introduction to the Science of Innovation – Part Two”.
Is that what you’re saying?
“Hardcore beer fanatic. Falls down a lot. Professional coffee fan. Music ninja.”