Definition: Innovation, Invention, Creativity, and

Experimentation
Creativity is the ability to think and act in ways that are new and novel. In our minds, there are
two kinds of creativity, innovation and invention. Innovation is thinking creatively about
something that already exists (e.g., the tape recorder, Walkman, and CD player are all
innovations on the phonograph). Invention is creating something that did not exist before (e.g.
the phonograph). A business example illustrates the difference clearly. When a team bases its
plans on the way the team has operated in the past, they are open only to innovation, such as
increasing efficiency. However, a team that is inventive will ask itself: Can we create a different
way to operate, one that will produce a different way of doing business?

Experimentation is the process by which people become creative. When you experiment, you
don't know the outcome. You can only guess. Often, experimentation leads to a surprise --
something you didn't expect. This is the power of creativity.

Organizations today need more invention than innovation. This means that people in
organizations need to release their creativity in ways that are quite different from the tried-
and-true methods of the past. It also means that organizations need to be open to more
experimentation to find out what works and what doesn't.

The Crucial Difference Between Creativity and

Innovation
By Mark McGuinness | 4/20/2009 | 24 Comments

One of the buzzwords you hear a lot in the business world these days, is “Innovation”.
Yes, it’s a genuinely worthy thing to aspire to. Genuine innovation creates lots of genuine
value, every young intern knows this. Which is why people like to throw it around like
confetti. It’s one of those words that sound good in meetings, regardless of how serious
one is about ACTUALLY innovating ANYTHING.

“Innovative” is an “external” word. It can be measured. It generally talks about things

that have been tested properly and found to have worked in the real world.
“Creative”, however, is more of an “internal” word. It’s subjective, it’s murkier. It’s far
harder to measure, it’s far harder to define. It’s an inward journey, not outward. Which is
why a lot of people in business try to keep the word out of their official lexicon,
preferring instead more neutral, more externally-focused language like “Value”,
“Excellence”, “Quality” and yes, “Innovation”.

Creative Dreamers vs Productive Innovators?

Hugh’s put his finger on an important distinction that I haven’t seen articulated quite like
this before. He’s put me in mind of Theodore Levitt’s classic definition of creativity and
innovation:

“Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things.”

‘Creativity’ is not the miraculous road to business growth and affluence that is so
abundantly claimed these days… Those who extol the liberating virtues of corporate
creativity… tend to confuse the getting of ideas with their implementation – that is,
confuse creativity in the abstract with practical innovation.
(Theodore Levitt, ‘Creativity Is Not Enough’ (1963))

Since business is a uniquely ‘get things done’ institution, creativity without

action-oriented follow-through is a uniquely barren form of individual behaviour.
Actually, in a sense, it is even irresponsible. This is because: (1) The creative man who
tosses out ideas and does nothing to help them get implemented is shirking any
responsibility for one of the prime requisites of the business, namely, action; and (2) by
avoiding follow-through, he is behaving in an organizationally intolerable – or, at best,
sloppy – fashion.

Creativity = Ideas but Innovation = Ideas + Action

The ideas are often judged more by their novelty than by their potential usefulness, either
to consumers or to the company. So:

Creativity = Novelty but Innovation = Novelty + Value

Levitt’s article was written over 40 years ago, but it’s still commonplace for writers to
distinguish between creativity and innovation on grounds of ideas and action, novelty and
value:

Often, in common parlance, the words creativity and innovation are used
interchangeably. They shouldn’t be, because while creativity implies coming up with
ideas, ‘it’s the bringing ideas to life’ . . . that makes innovation the distinct undertaking it
is.
Creativity: the generation of new ideas by approaching problems or existing practices
in innovative or imaginative ways… Creativity is linked to innovation, which is the
process of taking a new idea and turning it into a market offering.
 The distinction is alive and well on the internet, in cut-and-dried definitions of
creativity vs innovation and Innovation vs Creativity, and among bloggers keen to
confront us with ‘the ugly truth’ that creativity is merely ‘a way of thinking’ and
therefore ‘a subset of innovation’.

The message is clear: creativity is all very well for intellectuals and bohemians
sitting around on bean bags, but it takes an innovator to get things done.

It’s hard to argue with the logic. No reasonable person would claim ideas are more
valuable than action – but then creative people are notoriously unreasonable.

Psychological definitions of creativity generally contain two separate

components. In the first place, creativity requires that we make or think something new,
or a new combination of existing elements. This is the element of novelty or
innovation… However, mere novelty is not enough. To be creative, the idea must also be
useful, or valuable.
Bilton is not just talking about ideas – note that he refers to ‘making’ as well as
‘thinking’. So on this side of the looking glass, the terms of the equations are reversed:

Innovation = ‘mere novelty’ but Creativity = Novelty + Value and

Creativity = Ideas + Action

Like most creativity researchers, we rely on a product definition: A product is

viewed as creative to the extent that it is both a novel response and an appropriate,
useful, correct, or valuable response to an open-ended task.7

A ‘product definition’ means that a mere idea is not enough to qualify as creativity
– action is needed to transform the idea into a product.

In business, originality isn’t enough. To be creative, an idea must also be

appropriate – useful and actionable. It must somehow influence the way business gets
done – by improving a product, for instance, or by opening up a new way to approach a
process.
The study of creativity has generated a wide-ranging variety of definitions…
However, most contemporary researchers and theorists have adopted a definition that
focuses on the product or outcome of a product development process… in the current
study we defined creative performance as products, ideas or procedures that satisfy two
conditions: (1) they are novel or original and (2) they are potentially relevant for, or
useful to, an organization.
In the management literature on innovation, some authors reverse my distinction
between ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’, with creativity equating to ‘mere novelty’ and
innovation encompassing the dualism of novelty and fitness for purpose

So when you look carefully at the definitions, there is in fact no essential difference
between creativity and innovation. Not for anyone who takes either of them seriously.
 Everyone basically agrees on the importance of ideas + action and novelty + value.
From this angle, arguments about the superiority of innovation to creativity start to look
like macho one-upmanship.

And this is why I like Hugh’s post so much - logically, the two concepts may be the
same, but emotionally they have very different connotations:

‘Innovation’ has the feel of an external process, which corporate types are comfortable
measuring and tabulating. But Hugh reminds us that you can’t have any of this without a
creative fire in your belly.

This is a great article, Mark. Obviously there’s still some divided opinion on how
to look at the definitions of the two words. It seems to me that I’ve used the words to
function in different arenas: “creative” for the arts, “innovative” for the sciences (which
includes the business realm). For myself, I’ve never really considered something “creative”
unless it provides some tangible result (a book, sculpture, painting, whatever), same as
“innovation”. The two don’t really differ from a results standpoint.

I concluded that creativity is more a personal trait and innovation more of a process.

Cheers! I can’t thank you enough for this post. As the lead facilitator for a year-
long leadership program, we are examining “innovation” this month. I’ll be
pointing the class to your post, for discussion later in May.

We live in a northern community which has seen the demise of the forestry,
shipping and mining industries. We’re on the leading edge of DNA and medical
research - new industries in an isolated landscape. It’s an exciting time to be
exploring both creative potential and innovative strategy.

Thanks for taking on the topic! I couldn’t agree more with the importance of rigor
in language.

As much as I appreciate your thoughts, I must disagree with the conclusions. In a

research project on the definitions of innovation and creativity, I came to the
conclusion that there ARE in fact distinctions between creativity and innovation. I
presented these findings at the Creativity and Innovation Management conference
at the International Center for Studies in Creativity last year.

Based on an extensive literature review (including 65 published definitions of

innovation), the study concluded:

1) Creative thinking, creativity, and innovation are separate and distinct things.
Creative thinking is a process that can be taught, creativity is a phenomenon about
which can be taught, and innovation is more than creativity.
 2) While creativity is made up of the so-called 4 P’s, (person, process, product,
and press), innovation involves the elements of people, repeated creative thinking,
product/concept introduction, implementation strategies and internal and external
press (or context).

3) Using the terms interchangeably is damaging to the development of our field

and researchers and practitioners should be deliberate in their choice of words and
should educate others as to their preferred definitions

4) The likelihood of settling on one definition for a construct as broad as

creativity or innovation is remote, yet that doesn’t mean we should avoid the
attempt.

#6 | Ideas by Eric | 4/20/2009 at 10:43 am

I favor the first definition as it does not rely on the concept of novelty. Ideas can
only be new combinations of old things. The first definition makes a more useful
distinction.

Innovation = Ideas + Action –> Companies can support innovation both by

supporting action and creating a environment that supports creativity.

#7 | Mark Dykeman | 4/20/2009 at 10:45 am

I think something not mentioned, but relevant, is that “creative” and “creativity”
are also terms used by artists (graphic artist, sculptors, painters, etc.) or people we
think of as working on crafts (potters, sculptors (again), quilters, scrapbookers,
etc.) where there is often a tangible product at the end of their process. You could
argue that they are both creative and innovative if they come up with ideas then
work to make those ideas real or to given them form.

It’s also worth noting that “creativity” and “creative” are related to the word
“creation” which is, of course, making something, or, something made.

I guess Hugh’s point is that all of this innovation has to come from somewhere.
Where ideas can be worthless without action, action can be worthless or fruitless
without the right ideas. Moreover, I think he brings up the good point about the
motivation and desire to make stuff having to come from somewhere and a little
heart can go a long way.

#8 | Rosanne Bachman | 4/20/2009 at 11:40 am

Great article and great discussion on the topic. Perhaps I have a jaded view of
“creative” given the industry I work in. For me creative is different from
 innovation. And in fact in my industry, insurance, being creative can actually have
bad connotations. e.g. AIG was very creative! I might even go as far as saying
creativity is not always valued especially in my industry since the word creative
suggests working around the rules, which I am sure also happens in other
industries. For me creativity in a non arts world is doing what you have been
doing but putting a new face on it. Refreshing it to reach people who have tuned
out or were never listening in the first place. A true innovation is something new
to sell them, that takes action - a new design and adds value. I like the comment
on the use of innovation is like confetti. I couldn’t agree more. How often are
products advertised as new and improved! Innovation is when someone came up
with the idea of adding a fax function to a printer not printing out 10 more sheets
in a minute. While someone had to be creative to come up with the idea and bring
it to market, the reason to do it was to bring innovation to the product that
differentiated the product and the company manufacturing it. My view is purely a
business world view of these terms but I think it is a concept that some parts of
the business world needs to get a grip on before the clients get “innovation”
fatigue.

#9 | Beth Robinson | 4/20/2009 at 11:44 am

That’s fantastic. I love Hugh’s definition of differences and think it’s great that
you found the two different viewpoints saying essentially the same thing but
cutting hairs differently. I was nodding along with the first one - but then I work
in corporate R&D - and was very amused to see the second.

I’d be wary of calling myself creative at work and wary of calling myself
innovative in the arts. Creative at work would seem too flighty and not
productive. Innovative in artwork would be like putting on airs and claiming I’d
done something really different instead of just expressing in my own voice.
Which fits right in with the internal/external bit.

#10 | Dennis McDonald | 4/20/2009 at 5:06 pm

I’ve always been fascinated with the distinctions made between “artistic” and
“scientific” creativity. I find such distinctions more political than real, given the
similarity between mathematical and musical creativity for example.

#11 | Michael Plishka | 4/20/2009 at 6:19 pm

In some ways there is much cross-over between definitions.

If there wasn’t then Leonardo Da Vinci would probably fall more into the
“Creative” camp than the “Innovative” as he really didn’t bring as much stuff to
fruition as came forth from his mind. But I think that would be wrong.
 I still like the Innovation=Creativity x Risk definition that I build upon here:
http://zenstorming.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/the-mathematics-of-innovation/

Nonetheless, I have a tendency to lean more towards creativity as being that

which is more in the realm of ideas and innovation as acting on them. Value has
nothing to do with it in my book.

People at home and at work are innovating all the time and being creative. Just
depends on when and who’s watching to label it after the fact.

#12 | Jeremy Robinson | 4/21/2009 at 9:40 am

Great Insight, this is a conversation that needs to be shared as the word innovation
has become an empty marketing slogan that’s denigrated its meaning. I’m
personally going to start calling people for clarification.

We call ourselves a “creative” company (in fact its part of our name) and at one
point considered rechristening ourselves as an “innovation” company but felt the
word had been too abused. we also use the word ingenuity to describe what we
do.

examples at http://www.jarcreative.com

#13 | Suzanna | 4/21/2009 at 9:05 pm

I think of the difference this way - The Rubik’s cube came along because of very
creative thinking - drawing from the parts of the brain which can reach far past
anything conventional. (It took innovation to make it materialize, however.)

The part of the brain that can SOLVE the Rubik’s cube is innovative. It is working
within a structure. It draws on creativity in order to innovate the solution.

The above can be flipped to the opposite and debated that way too. So.

No matter how blurry the lines between creativity and innovation, we can make
good use of our own distinctions. When we want to be creative, the brain can be
more relaxed, spontaneous, even ridiculous. When we want to innovate, it’s time
to get out the graph paper, so to speak. You can induce activity in the brain areas
that accomplish innovation by supplying practical tools at that point. At least
some people can.

I’m with Hugh - more innovation comes after more creativity. Innovation is at the
mercy of our creative ability. Our world is limited only by our imagination.

Keep playing,
Suzanna Stinnett
#14 | Jan Delmas | 4/21/2009 at 11:20 pm

This is a really fascinating topic. Although over the years I’ve read many different
definitions of what creativity and what innovation mean I’ve still struggled to try
and get clear in my mind what the difference is.

Your post has really made me sit back and once again try and get clarity around
what I believe it is. So here goes..

To me, creativity is about the person, the way they go about solving problems or
come up with ideas - their thought processes. Innovation on the other hand is
more around how they put their ideas together - the practical processes.

Take the classic invention of Velcro. The creativity was in the curiosity of de
Mestral about why the burrs stuck to the dog and his trousers and then thinking
about what it meant. The innovation was doing something about it by putting the
two together - the loops in the trouser fabric and the hooks in the burr to create a
fastener.

#15 | Daniel Edlen | 4/22/2009 at 11:49 am

That’s Hugh’s method, tautological wordplay, semantics. His distillation is the

value he adds, not the words. I think most people read his work for the words, not
the content.

It’s funny that this whole post talks about talking and doing and nothing about
doing and letting others do the talking. It’s all words. His cartoon is “create or
DIE”, not “create or innovate”.

Peace.
@vinylart

#16 | Zoe | 4/22/2009 at 9:48 pm

Funny thing, when I read that post of Hugh’s, my first thought had been, “Hmm, I
always think of ‘creative’ as a buzzword first.” Oh, semantics. I love how you
unraveled one side of the story and then turned around to show up the completely
flipped story.

Semantically, it’s hard to argue a deep difference. But the connotations are
definitely strong, as you’ve illustrated here. Interesting, though, if we actually
look at a dictionary, it makes a distinction b/w innovative products and ideas, and
innovative people. When talking about a person, it sounds no different than
creative:
 innovative |ˈinəˌvātiv|
adjective
(of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original :
innovative designs | innovative ways to help unemployed people.
• (of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking : an
innovative thinker.

In the end, I guess the value of this semantic back-and-forth is just a big reminder
that it’s all well and good to be original, but you’ve gotta CREATE something
with it.

Thanks for the though-provoking post, as always.

#17 | Mark | 4/23/2009 at 12:27 pm

Thanks everyone, great discussion as usual. And interesting to be reminded that

‘creativity’ can have negative connotations in some contexts.

Several of you mention the distinction between people and the process, which
could be the theme of another article…

@Rosanne - Re the word innovation being ‘tossed around like confetti’, it

reminded me of this, quoted by Chris Bilton at the start of Management and
Creativity:

‘Creative’, ‘creation’, ‘creativity’ are some of the most overused and ultimately
debased words in the language. Stripped of any special significance by a
generation of bureaucrats, civil servants, managers and politicians, lazily used as
political margarine to spread approvingly and inclusively over any activity with a
non-material element to it, the word ‘creative’ has become almost unusuable.
(John Tusa, On Creativity)

#18 | Mark | 4/23/2009 at 12:39 pm

@Jonathan - I think I’ll have to return this compliment.

As much as I appreciate your thoughts, I must disagree with the conclusions.

Seriously - thanks for sharing your conclusions and the link to your research. I
can’t go along with such hard-and-fast distinctions as you make, but I think we’d
probably agree on what constituted effective thinking and action.

And sorry for the delay in your comment appearing, it got caught in our spam
filter.

#19 | Jim Canterucci | 5/1/2009 at 7:07 am

 I think of creativity as a prerequisite to innovation. In Personal Brilliance and for
audiences I attempt to simplify the semantic wanderings we’ve indulged in here
by defining the terms this way:

Creativity is generating something new. Innovation however, is the practical

application of creativity.

One not better than the other, rather a symbiotic relationship. There is value in not
reaching a practical application and certainly value in something that results in
what we call innovation.

#20 | Pius Onobhayedo | 7/13/2009 at 6:13 am

The Difference between Creativity and Innovation.

A closer look at the Latin origins of the two words would help to throw some
more lights on the differences. Creative comes from the Latin creâre (to cause to
exist) the ability to make something exist. On the other hand Innovate comes from
the latin word innovare (to renew, alter) from novus ‘new’.

Both words have to do with novelty. However, with respect to principle of

causality, creative is more radical in the sense that it’s primary focus is the fact of
bringing into existence what did not exist before. The less the material cause, the
more perfect it is as a creative act. Hence, creative act per excellence is that which
brings something new into existence out of nothing (i.e. zero material cause)
which we normally attribute to God only. Conceptually, creative tends to be blind
towards other existence but focuses on the substance and accidents (qualities, etc)
of the new “being”. Creativity in man has to do with his ability to bring into
existence new ideas from within his spiritual (immaterial) self. The less the
reference to other realities as material causes, the more perfect it is as creativity.
It’s good to note at this point that, less reference to other things in existence does
not mean that the latter cannot be source of inspiration for the new idea.
Inspiration however does not imply share copying as new ideas are just that, new.

Innovation tends to have a reference to what already exists (way of doing things,
what is done, etc). Often times, products of creative acts find their true ‘meaning’
in the context of association or interaction with other realities (created man finds
it’s meaning in relation to God. Eve finds her meaning in relation to Adam and
vice-versa). In the context of an organization, one can argue that it is more
appropriate to talk of innovation as a corporate goal rather than creativity in the
sense that, every new idea (creative) generated must find its ‘meaning’ in the
context of the organization. Thanks to the new idea, the organization through an
act of innovation can ‘alter’ the way it does somethings, ‘modify’ some products,
‘add’ some new products to the catalog (analogously, the addition of Eve to the
human society is an innovation in the human society, while the fact of existence
of Eve is a creative act), etc.
 In summary, one can conclude that following the chain of causality, creativity
gives rise to innovation. Innovative organizations are those that know how to
make good use of creative minds to achieve it’s organizational goals in a more
efficient and effective way. Creative minds alone will not take the organization
anywhere.

Conclusion:

Innovation = creativity + appropriation of creativity output

Join the Discussion...

Name (Required)

Email (Required But Not Displayed)

Website

Comment

Remember My Info

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Get Free Updates

Search
Popular Articles

• Tyler Durden's 8 Rules of Innovation

• The Kurt Cobain Guide to Startup Success
• Creative Rock Stars Series
• Productivity Toolbox for Creative People
• The Top 10 Social Networks for Creative People
• Foolish Productivity
• Beyond Getting Things Done
• The 3 Critical Characteristics of the Creative Entrepreneur
• Innovate or Die
• Creative Thinking Doesn't Cut It

Video Episodes

• Episode 1: Lou Needs a Clue

• Episode 2: Jack's Smirking Revenge
• Episode 3: Everybody Loves Marla
• Episode 4: Lou Has a Killer Idea
• Episode 5: Will Jack Make a Deal?

Jump to Top | Home | About | Contact | © 2009 Lateral Action. All Rights Reserved.