Everyone who loves Apple’s products is fully aware that the company is innovative, always pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, democratizing breakthrough technologies in the process. How Apple does that, of course, is basically a secret these days. At best, we know that Steve Jobs decrees a product get made, and then it materializes.
The NY Times tries to capture this mystical sense in an article about process innovation published in the Sunday Business section. And I have to say, working in and around this dialogue, the article provides one of the more abstract explanations for the value of innovation I’ve ever seen. It talks about how sweet Intel, Apple and Google are but doesn’t say why they are able to innovate, and what that means to the rest of us. Unless innovation is tied to business growth, it’s an academic exercise. I practically expected a reference to Wikinomics here, the argument is so not grounded in concrete terms:
Yet successful companies realize that maintaining competitive advantage depends heavily on sustaining process innovations. Great process innovators often support basic research in relevant fields, maintain complete control over the creation of every aspect of a product and refuse to rely on outside suppliers for important components. Certainly, there are exceptions to these patterns, but even companies like Apple that buy essential processes on the open market nevertheless invest in gaining a working knowledge of the technologies and an understanding of their future arc.
And that has what to do with process innovation? This is the golden goose so far as companies today are concerned. Apple and Procter & Gamble, for example do have very successful innovation strategies. But abstractly talking about an innovation process and actually realizing one are two different things. And this article provides no actions that can be taken to instill such processes back at our own companies. It’s just more fauning over Google, Apple and Intel. What a squandered opportunity.
4 responses to “NY Times: Apple is a “Process Innovator”. O RLY?”
“And that has what to do with process innovation?” And that has what to do with anything? That paragraph reads like a freshman paper in Management 101. I think I heard somebody with a jargon card yell, “Bingo!” as I was reading it.
First, “sustaining process innovations” is an oxymoron. Any time you sustain a process you’re not innovating. Successful process innovation doesn’t rule out any changes, least of all eliminating parochial refusals to go outside the company (there are actually good uses for some consultants). When Apple “buys” essential processes – exactly how do you buy a process? – they’ve just gone outside the company, but the article already said successful companies don’t do! And golly gee, Batman! Apple actually wants a “working knowledge” of the operation and future of technologies that are important to their survival? That’s innovation with a capital “I”.
When crap like this appears in the NYT you understand how the WSJ stays in business.
What is this, “democratizing breakthrough technologies”?
Living in Asia for the last 7 years, I would ahev to say Apple is good not at innovation, but design and redvelopment. lots of the stuff they comign up with is based on old technologies. Apples strength is they redesign thigns, make them elegant and simple. I dont think they are innovative at all.