In thinking about this, we do know that innovation is liquid and probably at one point in time global. I do get a sense, however, that the U.S. in particular has lost its sense of nationalism but is still less likely to collaborate. More from the point of view of selfishness and the Me generation.
Fran

I might agree that consumers are demanding more and more creative products and services in a more and more globalized economy.

This is beneficial for producers and industrialists as they can now market their ideas globally much easier than before. There are lots of support services available to localize international products and services and get it ready for market penetration in certain economic zones.

Consumers are also more educated and the internationalization of the media also plays an important supporting role for foreign product in a country.

Industries now needs to work together and there should be an upsurge in international joint venture activity as more competition demands more diversity and higher sales volumes. A good example of this is how international oil exploration has required supporting partnerships among local and global companies in the form of joint ventures.

To summarize: Global competition forces innovation to maintain prices and higher market penetration strategies to maintain profit levels for larger companies..

Innovation as a whole is always changing. The very definition suggests it. It isn’t until years have past that we can reflect back on whether the change was successful or not and to what affect it had on the overall process. The internet and sites such as LinkedIn are certainly changing the way we look at things and how we discuss it. The creation of a forum where people of many diverse backgrounds choose to turn to is interesting in itself. Why have we chosen LinkedIn? What benefits do we gain from its use? Is it only a source of new contacts, or is it changing the way in which we can get feed back on new or old ideas? Is this feedback truly helpful? Who determines what is right and wrong? Opinions are great but from where and from whom do they come. If a persons writes enough opinions on a subject, does that make the same person an expert or does it simply show that he is opinionated and likes to surf the web? Some people speak so that they can be heard regardless of whether or not they have something important or positive to contribute. What are their objectives / motives?

I think that it can be extremely helpful to seek collaboration, but it is also vitally important to know who is offering to help. I would agree that we have moved into a new paradigm and now we have the responsibility to determine the best way to make use of it. What works and what doesn’t? How do we use this new source of info or communication to achieve the next level without it getting in the way or working against us?

Kevin

Yes I certainly think that this is the Innovation Age. The biggest secret to ones success apart from Hard work is Innovation.People are looking for Cost -cutting techniques which has made them Innovate. New Products enter the market .More the Creative the firm is larger its consumers and larger its profits.The most important factor being as mentioned by you that Innovation is not limited to the Manufacturing line but the Services Industry fare much better.The concept of ” The whole World as a single Market” has made people to innovate to such an extent that they will produces services/goods suitable for the World Market. People are becoming more aware now due to various information acts and the Social Consumer is fighting with technology(Innovation) to create a better living place.

Regards
Karan Jain

The age of mass market economics ended in the summer of 2006. Soon after, the P2P Economy which is an economic age based on distributed ownership emerged. IMHO: Innovation is important but not as important as increasing an organization’s capacity for taking advantage of more bright ideas.

Zachary Alexander
The IT Investment Architect®
Links:

* http://www.p2peconomy.com/

NO. We have democratized innovation so that more people are allowed or expected to do it, and we have changed some of the ways we collaborate. We have, of course, also created many tools that enhance the speed and efficiency of innovation. And many of the do-dads we can now create are exciting beyond anything that has come before.

But innovation is innovation. It comes from desire for a new solution, analysis of existing data and development and vetting of ideas. It happens inside the heads of individuals alone, and in teams. There has been no change in this basic fact since the dawn of time (see The Renaissance, Classical Greece, Ancient Egypt, the American revolution, The Industrial Revolution, etc.).

Postmodernism has merely led those among us who are ignorant of history into a self-focused consciousness that ignores what has gone before and invents truth to serve its own purpose.

Many of our “postmodern” innovation tools have limited our ability to know truth as much as they have improved it.

We live in a comfortable, affluent culture and, as individuals, rarely face real threats to our survival. We have evolved (socially) to a place where we apply skills originally designed to ensure survival to the gratification of our egos and to our quests for self-actualization. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it can sometimes give us a false sense of the gravity of our thoughts, many of which have been “pre-thunk” by folks a lot smarter than us.

There may be a new paradigm in terms of our innovation resources; in fact, it is obvious we are in the middle of an enormous renaissance. But I would caution against a “millennium-centric” notion of the importance of our innovation work. It is easy to forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Stephen Stanton and Tim Johnson have wonderfully summed up my point of view. I particularly agree with Johnson’s description of “false sense of the gravity of our thoughts.” My high school physics teacher often said, “that’s true, but it’s not new” when we found ourselves overwhelmed with the gravity of our own thoughts. I tend to agree, and therefore take exception to the use of post-modern as a modifier for innovation. At best, we continue to innovate. We’ve not “discovered” the Rosetta stone to it.

Yes. Real innovation will occur outside of our current business models. Creatives and others will seek alternative routes like the Internet to fuel new ideas. Current businesses play like they are innovative but most kill real innovation or attempts. The real R&D days of technocratic society are too costly for most governments and unfortunately funded because of or on behalf of war.

True collaboration crosses geopolitical boundaries because the true artists, scientists and others who want to create new ideas respect each other and what they are building. Normally, their passions and motivations are not with money but with the creation. So, other ideas are like inspirations to move forward or stay with the art.

My humble opinion…..good luck with your piece. I would love to read it.

I publish and redesign magazines. I recall in the middle-90s that people were predicting the demise of newspapers and magazines because new Web browser technology had opened up the Internet to everyone.

Instead, the opposite was true. There was an explosion of special interest and niche publications in a matter of just a few years. In fact, a whole new genre of magazines emerged with a Web component (think WIRED, Fast Company). In other words through the Web, publishers found new and larger groups of enthusiasts. And enthusiasts found new means of participating in commercial media.

Only a few years ago, information flowed ONE-WAY through only a few narrow channels. Our present day explosion of innovation is exponential not only due to millions of new channels being opened, but also a new symbiotic ideation process that potentially includes everyone … certainly millions of participants. This is what is revolutionary.

One really interesting book on this subject is “Convergence Culture, Where Old and New Media Collide” by Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT.

I did an interview with Professor Jenkins in association with an article I wrote for ValueRich magazine in the Fall 06 issue. I have added a link to where you can download that article (zip, opens to pdf). Also, a link to his blog, which is about fan culture and new media.
Links:

* http://homepage.mac.com/dwillson/.cv/dwillson/Sites/.Public/Business-Tech/F...
* http://henryjenkins.org/

One evolved innovation that particularly appeals to me is the effect of quality evolution in online content represented by Wikis, especially Wikis set up for the use of particular interest groups. The firm I work for is a rather large global SI and we have recently built a knowledge management system using a globally-available Wiki.

This Wiki has generated enormous support in the form of shared content, but the most interesting part is how the “anyone can contribute” meme has transformed into an “everything is peer-reviewed” paradigm. It’s turning out to be the grassroots continuous improvement cycle that management has wanted for ages, but hasn’t achieved critical mass until now. It’s definitely happening now.