(2) 
"INNOVATION IS NOT GOOD IN ITSELF - IN FACT, MORE INNOVATION DOES HARM, THAN DOES GOOD.
My evidence for this statement is contained in a breathless announcement from Mintel, the market research company, that a "Record-Breaking Number of New Products Flood Global CPG Shelves" and that (the numbers are for 2006) "close to 182,000 new products were introduced globally, with key booming areas focusing on mind, body, and general good health".
Well over half of these of these innovations - 105,000, to be precise - were food and drink products. This flood of innovations enable us to profit from such trends as "brainpower foods, age-defying treatments, increases in portion control, and "just for you" customised products”.
Now I may have misunderstood something here, but surely the Mintel numbers mean that more than half the innovations that reach the market all over the world - 300 innovations, every single day of the year - decrease the resource efficiency and hence sustainability of global food systems?
Good, so that's Innovation dealt with. Bring on the next killer word!"
However, shouldn't innovators now consider the social and environmental responsibility of their actions?
If they do, innovations shouldn't be product launches for the sake of it, but new products that improve upon the social and environmental footprints of their predecessors and then innovation would be a good thing?
Posted by Ed Cotton
This missed the point of innovation. Nobody introduced a product to loose money or fail. They all wanted to succeed. If you slow down innovation, it doesn't get better
Posted by Warren Whitlock on 06/26/2008 02:29 PM
Not unlike Buxton's quote that 'Focusing on usability will help ypu get the design right, but it won't help you get the right design,' we also need to focus on the right kind of innovation.