Those cases typically have one factor in common: their structure — specifically, whether the innovation at hand can be broken down into distinct “modules.” An analysis of patents described in HBR found that while patents awarded for innovation in function typically belong to groups of inventors, patents awarded for innovation in form are presented in equal measure to groups and individuals.
While innovation in the creation of products, processes and machines can largely be separated into multiple components, allowing several innovators to contribute their unique perspectives to the final product, innovation in the development of the overall design of a product is typically restricted to one cohesive, interdependent piece.
Per HBR, “this interdependency between the parts of an invention significantly influences the dynamics of the invention process. A team working on design is likely to struggle should it attempt a divide-and-conquer approach to finding a holistic solution.”
Still, however, collaboration remains essential to all innovation, even in cases of holistic design. “Extensive collaboration allows inventors to assimilate their colleagues’ skills and build network resources that serve as channels of valuable information. Previous collaborators can offer feedback on ideas and identify other valuable resources, providing the lone inventor with some team-oriented benefits without imposing any team-induced coordination costs,” according to HBR.
More articles on innovation:
How Ochsner’s focus on social determinants will continue to lead its innovation efforts
Innovationeering: Creativity is dead … long live innovation
Former Partners CIO: How to fail-proof healthcare innovation
