Can innovation be taught?

[Norris]

I’ve always wondered whether innovation delved more into the realm of the ‘gifted and talented’, or ‘the academic’ i.e. people who studied the processes (if we could even call it that) involved within it and expertly conduct themselves.

Knowing the fine arts to ‘execution’, being able to understand it all involves a degree of learning for the most part (and majority of us) I believe. I look at this forum as well as many others, and the endless topics related to creativity I see, they ALL focus on the area of execution. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a topic that delved into the mechanics of how to innovate effectively.

It’s easy to teach a person how to execute properly because it involves easily defined processes.

This is how you communicate the moods of your characters.
This is how you develop your characters.

But to teach innovation (that is effective) on the other hand involves a significant degree of subjectivity, that being able to definitively identify the processes involved in its ‘execution’ is impossible from a practical perspective. I think of a story now, yet how can I make certain that WHAT I conjure up will be accepted?

We can teach a person how to WRITE a story effectively, but… can we teach a person how to CREATE one? Having the tools vs. knowing how to use them, which holds greater relevance in this area I wonder?

 

[Calibre]

It's important to distinguish the difference between the concept of creativity & invention, and innovation.

Creativity and Invention can not be taught. It can however be aided and maximised. Although creativity is considered a natural phenomena, it can however go through pre-defined stages that although may be happening sub-consiously is important to consider.

The creator must first understand a given situation, or identify something... a problem or opportunity. This factor would then usually lay dormant in the mind for a lengthy period of time allowing the creator to absorb influence from external factors... an incubation period if you will.

When the idea is naturally developed, it will hit the creator who then will proceed to check out the idea.

Considering that The moment of illumination is in fact a nautural phenomena, many will argue that for being the reason that it cannot be taught or forced. However, stages of both incubation and idea verification can be planned and consciously carried out, suggesting that a managerial process can be a part of creativity.

Innovation is a whole different matter, and is more complex a scenario. It is essentially impossible to create innovation without both the presence of a convergent and divergent thinking team. Rarely are people categorised as both, due to the way they reach their conclusions in analysis.

Divergent thinkers are crucial to think outside of the box and generate ideas, convergent thinkers are crucial to maximise profitability out of the concepts.

Therefore, this is why many major companies require a large team of both, essentially designers and idea men, and engineers and technicians for example. Innovation is the process of moving an idea through a chain and emerging the other side with a useful, profitable product. Something is only innovative if the consumer considers it to be, otherwise it is either an imitation or a gimmick.

Having the tools vs. knowing how to use them, which holds greater relevance

Most men I speak to seem to think that latter.

 

[Lackluster]

Most men I speak to seem to think that latter.

If one doesn't have the tools, but knows how to use the tools he does not have..he cannot do anything..if a person has the tools and doesn't know how to use them he can still create something..it will just suck ;o

 

[Calibre]

If one doesn't have the tools, but knows how to use the tools he does not have..he cannot do anything..if a person has the tools and doesn't know how to use them he can still create something..it will just suck ;o

But you do realise that was just a tongue in cheek and slightly ironic line to tack on the end with no actual relevance to the whole of my previous text?

 

[Roman Candle]

Creativity is something which really can't be given to someone. On the other hand, it is (essentially) impossible to be very creative without having a lot of detailed knowledge about a subject. People who are generally uneducated on most topics tend not to come up with new or interesting ideas, because they don't have that pool of information to work with.

Of course the exceptions are things like music and art, but when people appear with no training in a particular area and produce something amazing and fantastic, it's almost always by having an instictive knowledge of how people interpret music/art.

I go pretty much by the idea that creativity is something that can't be taken past its limit in someone; but most people never reach their creative peak without a wide education.

 

[FzGhouL]

Innovation comes through Experience and Understanding of Fundamental Principles.
You can teach the principles and provide a way for the experience to occur.

Creativity is creating a unique way around a problem. Its harder to teach, but experience can lend its hand to even the most lackluster individuals.

It is important to note that innovation is NOT an individual effort. It takes a collaborative team of well learned, diverse, and driven individuals to create something new.
Even the most creative and well learned of us have oversight and cannot perceive the correct solution.

 

[Andy6000]

If we placed 30 people with no sort of memory into a little simulated environment, how would they develop? Would they eventually reach the same things we do, or would they go in a radically different direction? I've always thought innovation was a thing that should largely be un-encumbered by possible misconceptions such as 'this is how it is', or 'there's no better way than this'. While it's absolutely true that it'd be kind of hard to innovate in one of the sciences with no knowledge of the science prior: discovering gravity is a great feat only to yourself if everyone else already knows of it; akin to a child learning to ride a bike. It's damn special to the kid, a milestone in his or her experiences, but does the world give a damn? Hell no, unless this kid is pulling mad moves that noone's even thought of on that bike, nobody's going to look twice.

But in less... developed, or unproven areas, pre-conceptions are a good thing to be rid of. Or at the very least approaching with an open mind, not much is proveable, and there's always the possibility of what you thought truth to be proven wrong by a bigger and better idea.

But you know, I'm rambling off-topic. Innovation is an abstract topic, it's hard to 'teach' persay beyond encouragement. You can tell a child what innovating means, but it's up to the kid to find something and innovate in the subject. As I've been mindlessly rambling about though, rock-solid pre-conceptions would merely hamper the process. Thinking something like string theory to be full-proof, later having to think up an alternative would be even harder.

 

[Anonymous]

Most of the above posts pretty much touched all the important topics, except perhaps side experience.

By side experience, I mean knowledge of tools and concepts related to various different domains.

Everyone works differently, and everyone sees the world differently. A guitarist who also paints will have a different approach whilst composing. Take Iannis Xenakis for example. He was an architect, and when he started composing, he implemented different concepts he'd learned from physics and mathematics into his music. That's innovation.

In other words, broadening your horizon is a great benefit in the creation process.