Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Organizational Learning

It seems that the word 'innovation' is in the 'active' vocabulary of many nowadays. No exaggeration on my part in saying that we sleep with 'innovation', eat with 'innovation', do things with 'innovation', breathe  with 'innovation', or even talk with 'innovation'. In fact, our whole existence is deeply rooted in 'innovation'.  Come to think of it, the word 'innovation' is itself an 'innovation'.

People evolve; so is language. Both are dynamic. Change through time, grow dynamically and adaptively in different contexts. To say that 'innovation' is the 'in' thing of today , is to discredit the great contributions of our predecessors; some in fact, did not last long enough to see how their 'thinking' and 'inventions' had greatly impacted the ways we live. To say the least, the comfortable life we conveniently 'inherit'.

Oh, yes. The previous widely-used word, was 'invention'. Remember some of the great inventors in history? Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, James Watt. Well, the lists could go on and on. Excluding of course, those unknown or 'undiscovered' by us since their 'inventions' may not 'impress' the world but were only 'meaningful' to those within their immediate surroundings. Let's give them  some credit by 'reminiscing' the good old days when all that we had were the small insignificant 'gadgets' our forefathers, who had, out of love and responsibility, painstakingly 'created' to ease in the carrying  out of our 'household' chores, whatever that may be. Wow, I sounded 'ancient', but actually it was not so long ago a time when we  had the 'rare' opportunity of appreciating the 'aesthetics' of our ancestors.

Well, coming back to the term 'invention' mentioned earlier. Because the 'reference' meaning of the word 'invention' exclusively limits itself to things of 'tangible' nature,  it gradually turns itself into 'obsolescence', and the word 'innovation' takes precedence as it adds more 'sense' to the meaning. Thus, the generation and creation of great ideas, methods and products are in its real sense of meaning, to be regarded as 'innovations'. An act to include the 'intangible' attributes to the meaning of the word.

Well, if that is the significance and rationality behind the change in the use of term, then, why is there so much fuss about it? The complexity, undoubtedly, lies in its 'contextual' meaning. Surely, both 'invention' and 'innovation' start from the generation of ideas. And in all instances, the best idea prevails. What significantly differentiates them is the 'context'; i.e. the former is individually-oriented (i.e. solely the inventor's effort), while the latter, germinates a collective spirit of a team, a group, an organization, a nation.

Thus, innovation becomes more crucial a matter for us, situated within a knowledge domain. Suffice, innovation marks our 'advancement' in knowledge-seeking, knowledge-creating and knowledge-producing practices. No current knowledge could 'expand' itself without an 'understanding' of past wisdom.  Both, tightly related. It is through the acts of assimilation and accommodation of past and present knowledge that a 'fresh blend' of knowledge could be generated, which could be contextually filtered to suit the present  and future needs. As a matter of fact, it is the mixing of past and present knowledge which allows us to 'anticipate' future challenges; i.e. a 'historical' cycle of knowledge.

So, with recent call for 'entrepreneurship' values to be inculcated among our youths, it is not too late a call to remind all of our members of knowledge society to enhance our own 'entrepreneurial' values. Since, as knowledge workers, we ourselves own our 'means of production'; a belief well-expressed by Peter Drucker, and hence, should be accountable for our own relevancy in this forever challenging and changing global society. 

As an individual knowledge worker, it is imperative that we engage ourselves in life-long learning. We need to learn, unlearn and relearn. As things may mean differently to different people, they may also be differently interpreted in different contexts of situation. Thus, we need to be aware of the 'obsolescence' of our knowledge, as well as the importance of acquiring a new one. Embrace change, brave it, survive it. Be, by all means, dynamic.

As members of an educational organization, more crucial than ever to ensure that each of us, contribute to organizational learning. For our organization to stay relevant and competitive, both in local and global setting, we as educational leaders need to contribute our effort collectively to achieve our organizational goals. And this, by enhancing our organizational knowledge and to effectively perform as both a learning as well as a teaching organization. It will guide us on the course of actions and directions to take in ensuring our best contributions to the society in which our organization exists. Thus, continuously and constantly fill our organization's 'reservoir' with both individual as well as collective knowledge, which will inevitably characterize our unique organizational knowledge.

Crucial therefore for an educational organization such as ours to be able to sustain itself despite the 'ups' and 'downs'  occurring in both the local and global scenes. The 'culture' of our educational organization should prevail. Cutbacks  in budget should not adversely affect the development of our human resources, in terms of the enhancement of their capacity and capability. Quite the contrary, there is no better time than during an economic downturn that we should invest on enhancing the capacity and capability  of our manpower. There is no better time than now to review our products, practices and processes, which may have over the years become irrelevant and uncompetitive, to seek for new frontiers to explore and to find new challenges to test our strengths and discover our weaknesses.

In sum, innovation, entrepreneurship and organizational learning are vital issues that we need to boldly and truthfully address to avoid what is termed by Drucker as 'organizational inertia' from setting in; i.e the organization's inability to grow. While the 3'R's of Environment (i.e. Reuse, Reduce, Recycle), may be said to accurately translate the need of preserving our nature, the same 3'R's concept  (Reuse, Recycle, Rebranding) could not be taken as totally applicable within our knowledge-oriented domain, lest, it will lead to the addition of another  'R';  i.e. the 'Reduce' of intellectual capacity of our knowledge society.