Invention and Innovation appear to be the same for many of us. We also use these two terminologies interchangeably. However, there is a distinctly visible fine line between them. The clarity of this fine line about invention vs innovation not only makes us more literate about technology innovation. More importantly, it plays a vital role to assess the likely implications of technology invention on both product and Process innovation. We need to take this distinction into consideration in managing technology for driving innovation strategy.
Often, we engage in invention vs innovation discourse. The distinction between them invariably gets blurred. Sometimes, we use invention and innovation interchangeably. However, there is an obvious line between them. Clarity about it reduces the complexity in interpreting reality, and also predicts unfolding dynamics. It also leads to more effective and efficient communication. Such clarity is vital in formulating technology and product strategy and also pursuing inventions and innovations for implementation.
For example, the light bulb is an innovation. It came out of the invention of the technology of producing light by heating carbon filament with electricity. It happens to be that Thomas Alpha Edison got credit for both the invention and innovation of electric lighting. He invented or perfected the invention of producing light by passing an electric current through carbon filament. He also innovated the light bulb around that invention. Many types of light bulbs have been innovated around the same technology core for meeting various lighting purposes. Light bulb innovation as car headlights largely varies from light bulbs used in households. However, sometimes, they use the same technology invention. At present, it’s light-emitting diode technology.
Invention vs innovation examples
To bring clarity, let’s look into a number of examples. Let’s go back to the light bulb. We are still using light bulb innovation. However, the present light bulb’s technology core is a light-emitting diode (LED) instead of filament. The invention of LED technology has led to making light bulb innovation far more energy-efficient than ever before. Although the technology core has changed, credit given to Edison for light bulb innovation is still valid, and also in use. However, the modern light bulb no longer usages Edison’s invention—a light-producing filament.
The electronic image sensor is a technological invention. For this invention, two scientists working at the Bell laboratory got Nobel Prize. Their invention was basically limited to demonstrating a technique of producing and collecting electrons in proportionate to the number of incident photons. However, this invention did not serve any practical pursuit until the effort to improve it and innovate digital cameras. Hence, the digital camera is an innovation developed out of the invention of the electronic image sensor. Many different types of cameras have been innovated out of this invention.
Similarly, the internal combustion engine is an invention. This invention is about the technique of producing mechanical motion out of the combustion of gasoline in a closed chamber. The technique of producing rotating mechanical motion out of the flow of steam was an invention. These inventions have been refined and used to innovate all kinds of engines and products around them. The list goes on. For example, Transistor as a solid-state electronic switch is an invention. Numerous already innovated products experienced improvement with this invention. Similarly, some innovative products came out using Transistor as the technology core.
On the one hand, invention leads to the innovation of new products. On the other hand, the invention of new technology opens the opportunity of changing the technology core of existing innovations to offer better substitutions.
Differences and similarities between invention and innovation
Invention forms the foundation for innovation. It’s like a substrate on which innovation grows. However, the urgency of innovation or making improvements of existing innovations often drives invention. For example, in the 1940s, AT&T was desperate for an invention of a solid-state switch, having a moving component, to replace an electromechanical one. This desperation led to the invention of the Transistor. Subsequently, this invention led to the improvement of existing innovations and innovating new ones.
Innovation vs invention: what is more important?
In innovation vs invention discourse, there is also debate about which is more important. It appears to be a non-conclusive one. In the absence of invention, innovations do not lead to realization. On the other hand, the invention itself does not offer any Utility. Products, innovated out of the invention, offer us means to get jobs done better. We derive benefits from the invention by making usages of innovation. For example, the invention of the Transistor or electronic image sensor was of no use till Sony innovated the pocket radio or digital Camera out of them. However, in absence of those inventions, how would have Sony offered innovations to get our jobs done better? Hence, they are complementary. Their benefits emerge in a collective form.
Effects of the invention on innovation and business strategy
The invention of technologies and their progression leads to business strategy in exploiting innovation potentials. They use them to make an incremental progression of their product and processes. Sometimes, they also take a radical step in changing the technology core of products. For example, Sony changed the technology of the core of the Camera for creating an entry into the imaging industry. Sony’s such attempt also made Kodak bankrupt. The invention of the Transistor is also leading to software-intensive innovation in changing the underlying competition strategy. For example, once word processing used to be a mechanical machine. This mechanical machine’s transformation into software running on personal computers enabled Microsoft to monopolize the global word processing market. Many other products and industries are undergoing such transformation.
Invention and Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction
The invention of new technology often leads to changing the technology core of incumbent innovations. The purpose is to offer better substitutes. Despite primitive emergence, often, such substitutes grow as creative destruction to existing products and industries. For example, the internal combustion engine’s invention led to the emergence of automobile innovation, causing creative destruction to horse wagons. Similarly, the electronic image sensor led to digital camera innovation. Technology invention leading to the creative destruction to existing products is at the core of our increasing quality of living standards. However, it poses both challenges and opportunities to firms. Moreover, society goes through a messy transformation to benefit from the creative destruction of innovations, fueled by inventions.
Clayton’s Disruptive innovation gets fuel from technology invention
The change of the technology core with recent inventions leads to the primitive emergence of substitutions of existing innovations. For example, the mobile telephone was primitive in comparison to landline phones in the 1980s. Similarly, PC was highly inferior to minicomputers. Similarly, electric vehicle is inferior to gasoline ones now. Often, customers of existing products around matured inventions are not interested in such primitive emergence. Moreover, the sale of such inferior alternatives also produces loss-making revenue. Such a situation causes a decision-making Dilemma to incumbent firms. Prof. Clayton termed it an innovator’s Dilemma. Sometimes, this decision-making dilemma leads to failure to switch to a new wave of innovation fueled by emerging inventions. Consequentially, failing to switch leads to the disruption of firms–terming it as disruptive innovation.
Invention and innovation have bidirectional links, driving each other. They unfold both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, invention fuels innovation creating new firms, industries, and markets. It also destroys the existing ones based on mature inventions. In the Market Economy, invention fueling innovation is vital for our prosperity. However, such progress takes place through a messy transformation. Hence, we should have clarity about invention vs innovation concepts. This clarity is vital to drive the progression out of innovations by using inventions as fuel, as opposed to getting marginalized.
