8
innovators to experiment, learn, and adapt concepts, so they can quickly and cheaply
refine the product into something even better.
Successful design thinking does not just end with a product or service that simply reduces the pain of the user. The solution must then be communicated to a wider
audience through powerful, compelling narratives and storytelling for wide product
or service adoption to take place.
A word of warning – design thinking can create substantial tension in organizations and companies accustomed to linear, milestone-based product development
and innovation. One of the tenets of design thinking and human-centered design is
the need to achieve a close rapport with users – something at odds with a more
structured view of developing new products and services.
Additionally, design thinking not only embraces but actively seeks failure as a
key learning approach. Yet, many organizations have a near zero tolerance for failure. That means that the implementation of a human-centered approach in organizations requires strong leadership and full organizational support, or else it is likely to
fail, once again leading to innovation efforts falling short of expectations (Bason
and Austin 2019).
1.4 Innovation Is Different from Research and Development
Often innovation and research and development are referred to as if they are interchangeable concepts. Nevertheless, their meaning, scope, and purpose are quite different: research and development (R&D) comprise creative and systematic work
undertaken in order to increase knowledge – including knowledge of humankind,
culture, and society – and to devise new applications of already available knowledge
(OECD 2015). This differs in many ways from the working definition of innovation
provided in Sect. 1.2.
The difference between the two can create misunderstandings, as well as conceptual, practical, and very expensive mistakes. Though in theory, corporate R&D
spending relates to increased innovation and the growth of revenues and profits,
that’s not always the case. The magnitude of R&D expenditures is only moderately
related to the number of innovative products/services launched or even those that
gain high market share and profits.
To some extent, confusing R&D and innovation arises from a narrow, technologydriven stance on innovation. Innovation, by default, encompasses a much wider
scope than R&D, and as Gina O’Connor from Babson College aptly puts it, innovation involves three diverse capabilities: discovery, incubation, and acceleration. In
many cases, the resources, investments, and time required during the incubation and
acceleration stages far exceed those needed to develop technologies in the first place.
Indeed, within profit-seeking firms, R&D and market success are two different
things. Strategy & – a business unit within PricewaterhouseCoopers – was unable to
find a statistically significant relationship between R&D spending and sustained
financial success when it analyzed the top 1,000 most innovative companies over 12
H. Campos
innovators to experiment, learn, and adapt concepts, so they can quickly and cheaply
refine the product into something even better.
Successful design thinking does not just end with a product or service that simply reduces the pain of the user. The solution must then be communicated to a wider
audience through powerful, compelling narratives and storytelling for wide product
or service adoption to take place.
A word of warning – design thinking can create substantial tension in organizations and companies accustomed to linear, milestone-based product development
and innovation. One of the tenets of design thinking and human-centered design is
the need to achieve a close rapport with users – something at odds with a more
structured view of developing new products and services.
Additionally, design thinking not only embraces but actively seeks failure as a
key learning approach. Yet, many organizations have a near zero tolerance for failure. That means that the implementation of a human-centered approach in organizations requires strong leadership and full organizational support, or else it is likely to
fail, once again leading to innovation efforts falling short of expectations (Bason
and Austin 2019).
1.4 Innovation Is Different from Research and Development
Often innovation and research and development are referred to as if they are interchangeable concepts. Nevertheless, their meaning, scope, and purpose are quite different: research and development (R&D) comprise creative and systematic work
undertaken in order to increase knowledge – including knowledge of humankind,
culture, and society – and to devise new applications of already available knowledge
(OECD 2015). This differs in many ways from the working definition of innovation
provided in Sect. 1.2.
The difference between the two can create misunderstandings, as well as conceptual, practical, and very expensive mistakes. Though in theory, corporate R&D
spending relates to increased innovation and the growth of revenues and profits,
that’s not always the case. The magnitude of R&D expenditures is only moderately
related to the number of innovative products/services launched or even those that
gain high market share and profits.
To some extent, confusing R&D and innovation arises from a narrow, technologydriven stance on innovation. Innovation, by default, encompasses a much wider
scope than R&D, and as Gina O’Connor from Babson College aptly puts it, innovation involves three diverse capabilities: discovery, incubation, and acceleration. In
many cases, the resources, investments, and time required during the incubation and
acceleration stages far exceed those needed to develop technologies in the first place.
Indeed, within profit-seeking firms, R&D and market success are two different
things. Strategy & – a business unit within PricewaterhouseCoopers – was unable to
find a statistically significant relationship between R&D spending and sustained
financial success when it analyzed the top 1,000 most innovative companies over 12
H. Campos