There’s a Harvard Blogs piece (in the April 2010 edition of HBR) that gets the occasional airing.
The argument is that ‘copying is as valid as innovation’ — in short. I’m sure I do not agree ethically, economically and due to hard numbers. Read the article by Oded Shenkar here: http://hbr.org/2010/04/defend-your-research-imitation-is-more-valuable-than-innovation/ar/1
Here’s my rebuttal from the site:
Innovation requires returns to innovators in a market-based system.
Without returns to innovators you remove incentives for innovators.
You then reduce investment in innovation and get more bright people moving into ‘high paid’ but ‘low value’ professions. If you want an innovation economy, this is an irresponsible argument.
Is Baidu worth more than Google? Is every Lethal Weapon knock-off as valuable as the original series? Are returns the same? Investors in innovation find higher returns. Innately we sense a ‘pale copy’ of an original. It’s why ‘Coke’ is the ‘real thing’ — and that brand line has worked so long.
However incrementalism is worthwhile. Google, Apple & Microsoft have all done this. Breakthrough innovation is also valid, but rarer.
Our innovation models explain this, and Silicon Valley case studies show the concommitant returns from innovation.
My city benchmarking data research for 2thinknow convinces me of my view. But I am may be wrong. Convince me.
What do you think?
Keep innovating,
Christopher Hire