On the other hand, incremental innovations

[joxet11299]

are, according to the Business Dictionary, “a series of small improvements to an existing product or product line that usually helps maintain or improve its competitive position over time.” As opposed to disruptive innovations, incremental ones are more evolutionary in nature, as they won’t allow you to carve out a new market, but instead tunisia whatsapp number database strengthen your position in the market by simply refining your already existing offering, or offer a product with a slight twist on something that was already successful, and make it your own.

It seems widely established in the business world that both disruptive and incremental innovations are considered, well, innovations. So, why did Apple catch so much flack for launching a product that provided an evolutionary step in their established iPad’s lifecycle? One word: Expectations. People have grown to expect Apple to “wow” them at every new product launch, while the company itself seems content with tweaking its already successful products. So the general public’s perception seems to be that disruptive innovations only can be called innovations, while incremental ones are only refinements. Let’s take a closer look at bridging the gap between these.

Innovation vs. Refinement

In Don Lehman’s article on the Techblock, the founder of More/Real replaces the debate of disruptive vs. incremental squarely on innovation vs. refinement instead. To him, “overemphasizing innovation undervalues the benefits of refinement.” In other words, companies can sometimes be so blinded in their pursuit of the next great innovation, that they’ll miss out on the obvious moneymaker, which is simply continuing to refine the great product they already have on the market. The problem, according to Lehman, is that a lot of companies like to bandy the word “innovation” around, without necessarily knowing what it truly means, nor what their (or their customers) expectations are when it comes to what makes a product/service innovative or not. Companies use it because it’s “cool,” which isn’t exactly the end-goal when trying to run a successful business. It requires a lot more brainpower and resources in order to develop an offering that’s truly revolutionary. Refining a product or service gives you a solid basis to build from. As Lehman concludes in his article, “Innovation is important, exciting, and necessary. But so is Refinement. We need to celebrate refinement more than we have. However we shouldn’t be asking ourselves which is more important. Innovation and refinement are not goals. They are methods and strategies. The question we should be asking: Is this Better? That’s the only goal that matters.”

I’d like to add another question: Will people purchase it, regardless of it being innovative /refined?