Sure! You can give my book, “Mapping Innovation” as the source.

]]>I would like to know if it is possible to publish your innovation matrix and how to correctly quote the source.

Thank you for your kindly reply

Best regards,

Pier

William,

Thanks for the question (I actually get that a lot). The answer is that I cannot really answer it because the matrix and the process is intended to be forward looking, not backward looking. It doesn’t matter where the activity is taking place (e.g. and R&D lab) or how it is categorized (e.g. product or process innovation) but what kind of problem needs to be solved.

So, for example, if an R&D lab is trying to solve a well defined problem in a well defined domain, it would be a sustaining innovation. But, if, for instance, the domain is not well defined or that after months or years of trying, they are not able to solve it (which would indicate that the domain has not been defined properly), then it probably be more of an breakthrough innovation problem. If neither the problem or domain is well defined, it would require a more basic research approach.

The truth is that R&D labs take many forms and apply varied strategies and approaches, so the fact that the work is taking place in an R&D lab tells us very little about the problem that needs to be solved. In a similar way, product and process innovation encompass many different types of problems, so simply stating the fact that it is one or the other tells us very little about what type of strategy would be fit to solve it.

The reason that I developed the matrix (and why it has gained such traction) is that what innovators need is to identify strategies that fit the problem they need to solve and the matrix provides a useful guide for that. What it is not intended to do is categorize innovations after the fact (e.g. the iPhone was a sustaining or breakthrough innovation). To be honest, I don’t think it matters what you call it once the problem has already beed solved.

Make sense?

Greg

]]>I am very confused on the examples of sustaining innovation, basic research, and breakthrough innovation. I have a few questions, please help me understand them.

1)How to distinguish whether the work of an R&D Lab (example: Sony Lab)is considered basic research or sustaining innovation?

Would it be considered a breakthrough innovation if there is a technological breakthrough?

2)When a research institution of a university make a breakthrough discovery, is it consider basic research or breakthrough innovation?

3)Why would “Structure of DNA” (breakthrough innovation) be considered as a new category, what differentiates it from a basic research (with remarkable findings)?

4)Where does process innovation fit into this matrix?

]]>That’s great to hear Petros!. You might enjoy my upcoming book, *Mapping Innovation*, which expands on these ideas.

I went through your post, trying to find a convinsing presentation on Innovation Types.

I am 20 years in the Company and I have focused a lot on Research, in an effort to develop innovative products.

Your thoughts are highly well put and provide a nice guidance to those wish to learn and understand how they have to takle with certain major problems pursuing innovation to gain competitiveness.

Thank you very much

Petros ]]>

The point of the matrix is not to classify innovations, but to classify problems in order to identify the most suitable strategy to solve them.

So, it depends on how they approach it and what problems they seek to solve. For example, if they partner with Google, it could be a sustaining innovation.

I hope that’s helpful.

– Greg

]]>I am learning about digital innovation and this article was very helpful. I just wanted to know how can we define ford’s new announcement of autonomous cars. Will it be classified under Disruptive innovation or Breakthrough innovation???

Please share your feedback.

Thank you

Thanks for sharing Pablo.

]]>Perhaps your readers would find this useful.

]]>