From the beginning, a consultant seeking to provide innovative guidance should ensure that clear objectives are set that lead to innovative outcomes. Without clear objectives, it is unreasonable to expect consistent, innovative progress. Moreover, teams assembled for the purpose of innovative development should be encouraged to brainstorm and collect ideas for future reference. In this team-innovation context, the consultant can act as a facilitator, encouraging team members to “think outside the box”—by seeking solutions for problems that presently exists, or imagining completely new possibilities. For innovative, groupthink sessions, time constraints may be valuable: by setting a rigorous timeline, participants must hone their focus to describe new solutions or processes. Innovation consultants must make every effort to offer the tools teams need—namely, personal skills and intra-group communication techniques that support the process of discovering new possibilities. To work effectively, innovative group development must be intentionally structured to promote new ways of thinking.
In contrast, a change management consultant focuses on change that is not necessarily innovative or “new”—perhaps, by being involved in the smooth transition from one output focus to another or maximizing current productivity. The consultant’s role, for example, likely includes crafting a visions statement, and improving the communication process throughout the firm. Since a change consultant oversees big changes in a firm—the efficient transition (i.e., “change”) is vital. This process can also include bringing all concerned parties together (i.e., stakeholders from all levels), and making sure the “change” matches expectations.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Innovation Versus Change".
Accordingly, innovative firms and productive firms go about their daily work in different ways, since the primary focus is not the same. While innovation involves the development of new ideas, processes, and applications, production involves raising the level of output from a flow of inputs. Inherently, then, innovative firms are focused on creating the new, while productive firms are focused on maximizing the present. While these two do not necessarily stand at odds with one another—especially since firms can have both ongoing production and a solid R&D department—the primary focus indicates whether innovation versus production.
Additionally, the balance of focus can change over time, due to differences in an organization’s needs over its lifespan. As the Greiner 5-Stage Model illustrates, a framework for thinking about organizational change, includes the growth steps: 1. Creativity, 2. Direction, 3. Delegation, 4. Coordination, 5. Collaboration, and 6. Alliances. The first stage, creativity, mostly involves young firms, just beginning to determine their role in their space. At some point, however, an entrepreneur or entrepreneurial team can no longer cover all of the responsibilities, and the organization becomes more complex with the addition of team members. From the creative stage, onward, business processes become more defined—especially those vital to daily operations. The sixth stage, Alliances, describes a business actively strengthening its external relationships, to support the internal organization that has been built. Thus, as a business moves along the Grainer Model, there exists greater potential for a business to move from startup innovation (Creative Stage), to a likely far-less-innovative, reinforcement stage (Alliances).
The idea that, “All innovation is change, but not all change is innovation,” supports the notion that progress is not necessarily revolutionary (or even positive) progress. While a team always moves in some direction, that movement itself, that process of change, could be better termed entropy, or could also be called “business as usual.” Entropic change is not innovation—since, innovation comes through new, intentional introduction or application, not “same old, same old,” or even worse, change in a negative direction. While “business as usual” is not inherently negative, it is also not innovative.
