Invention vs innovation….and where creativity fits in | SF AppWorks

If you’ve followed along on our innovation journey, you already know that invention and innovation are cousins, not identical twins. Innovation is a byproduct of invention, and creativity is the lifeblood of both.

Though it seems simple enough, this can get a bit hairy. When you think of the word “invention” (spoiler, cringey pun coming), a lightbulb might turn on in your head—and for good reason. But don’t forget, Edison’s patented lightbulb of 1879 was actually the result of myriad innovations to earlier British inventors’ creation of the arc lamp beginning in 1803. Various groups of scientists played with, tweaked, and thought about these improvements for over 40 years before Thomas Edison’s team honed the specific innovations that became iconic. So is the lightbulb still an invention? The invention of a few, and innovation of many, perhaps. 

Some people more radically conceptualize creativity as a mystical gift drawn from some invisible fountain, endowed only to the true artist. In The War of Art, Steven Pressfield describes creativity in the poet and artist William Blake, calling him “one of those half-mad avatars who appear in flesh from time to time—savants capable of ascending for brief periods to loftier planes and returning to share the wonders they have seen.” 

I’m about to tell you the secret to this level of creativity. 

Just kidding. 

But it’s important to remember that some of the best creativity often springs from the simple need to solve a problem. Translation: analytically minded problem solvers *cough, innovators* have a lot to work with. Creative problem solvers are the engine of innovation. 

In Amabile’s study on this topic, she notes three key conceptualizations of creativity: person, process, and product.  

What defines the creative individual? Here are some definitions to consider.

Note: Interestingly enough, Teresa Amabile’s extensive research uncovered that some characteristics of problem solvers actually overlapped with those found by creativity researchers. These were:

She conducted an intensive study which revealed that when lightly groomed with a biased questionnaire meant to influence subjects’ perception of why they were doing what they were doing, those who considered extrinsic motivators to their work showed a distinct decrease in creativity––below the control group, and considerably below the group that premeditated on intrinsic motivators.

She notes, most importantly, that if these effects were so easily measurable in a brief study, they would be large in the demanding environment of the corporate economy.