“Innovation is an evolutionary process, so it's not necessary to be radical all the time.”
“Defined simply, innovation is, of course, the introduction of something new. We presume that the purpose of introducing something new into a process is to bring about major, radical change. Process innovation combines a structure for doing work with an orientation to visible and dramatic results. It involves stepping back from a process to inquire into its overall business objective, and then effecting creative and radical change to realize order-of-magnitude improvements in the way that objective is accomplished.”
Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology, 1993
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Thomas H. Davenport 11
American academic 1954Related quotes
“Innovation - the heart of technological change - is fundamentally a learning process.”
Source: Global Shift (2003) (Fourth Edition), Chapter 4, Technology: The Engine of change, p. 115
Source: "Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate," 1990, p. 104
Thomas H. Davenport, "Need radical innovation and continuous improvement? Integrate process reengineering and TQM." Planning Review 21.3 (1993): 6-12.
Egils Levits (Latvian ECJ Judge), Quoted in “Latvijas avize”, 21 June 2004
In Quest of Democracy (1991)
Book summary
The great transition (1995)
"Code + Law: An Interview with Lawrence Lessig" at O'Reilly P2P (29 January 2001)(29 January 2001)
Context: Our problem is that lawyers have taught us that there is only one kind of economic market for innovation out there and it is this kind of isolated inventor who comes up with an idea and then needs to be protected. That is a good picture of maybe what pharmaceutical industry does. It's a bad picture of what goes on, for example, in the context of software development, in particular. In the context of software development, where you have sequential and complementary developments, patents create an extraordinarily damaging influence on innovation and on the process of developing and bringing new ideas to market. So the particular mistake that lawyers have compounded is the unwillingness to discriminate among different kinds of innovation.
We really need to think quite pragmatically about whether intellectual property is helping or hurting, and if you can't show it's going to help, then there is no reason to issue this government-backed monopoly.