Innovation: Vision, Strategy, and Execution

Lately, there has been a major push across multiple industries to be "innovative" - that is, to come up with wild and crazy ideas that will take the market by storm and build them right away.  It's a spirit of adventure that has not been seen since the years leading to the dot-com crash - and unfortunately, it is the exact same spirit that resulted in the dot-com crash.

As with anything, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to approach innovation, and I have the distinct sense that many firms are going about it with reckless abandon, resulting in nonsensical ideas rushed to market and, ultimately, in embarrassing and expensive failures.   It's possible to innovate quickly and effectively, but it require a more measured and sober approach.   Specifically, consider a three step process:

1. Vision - Come up with a bunch of wild and crazy ideas, ignoring all constraints.
2. Strategy - Filter those ideas to see which ones are actually worth pursuing.
3. Execution - Once an idea has been qualified and vetted, seek to bring it to the market quickly and efficiently.

My sense is that many firms are completely skipping the second step and seeking to bring fresh ideas to the market as quickly as possible without asking key questions such as:  Is this idea something people want enough to pay for?  Is it in line with the mission and purpose of the firm?   Is it something that can be done in a financially sustainable manner?   Is it even legal to do such a thing?

Granted, that is a generalization.  There are also problems that arise (chiefly stagnation) when the vision step is omitted and firms remain too grounded in the constraints of business as usual.   This happens quite frequently in stodgy and slow-moving industries where there is higher demand than supply and little competitive pressure.  But such situations are fewer in the present day, where every industry seems to be crowded with firms that are striving to lead the field, desperately trying to be innovative, and making the most tragic mistakes.

It was most often the case in the years leading to the dot-com crash that the strategy step was skipped: a novel idea was struck upon, funded, and built, without any sense of whether it was worth pursuing.   And I see this tragic perspective becoming dominant again in the present day.  And as amusing as it is to watch, it's certainly worth pausing to consider in order to avoid a repeat of those events.