Innovation 4.0

Concepts evolve like living organisms. The meaning of some changes over time, and some even fail to survive and disappear. If a word, especially a technical term, has survived natural selections until today, it must be serving a function. Understanding the evolutionary development of concepts allows us to use them correctly, in the right place, and enriches the language through mitotic and meiotic divisions. Innovation has undoubtedly undergone a semantic transformation throughout history to reach today. Since it is still alive, it means it describes more than similar concepts such as "creativity", "invention", "technology", "science" and "discovery". There is a serious epistemological difference between some of these concepts. For example, technology is a result. Innovation is both a process and a result. I recommend "philosophy of innovation" and "philosophy of technology" readings to those interested. Innovation is not just a mental (cognitive) competency like creativity, but a sub-branch of "management" science and an interdisciplinary field. Innovation is a field of expertise that requires the management of many processes and systems, with complex methods and models. For example, there is no "Creativity Management" or "Invention Specialist". For institutions to be innovative, they need to design, effectively manage, and continuously improve various systems. "Innovation Management" has undergone a historical development according to human needs and economic/technological advances, and has now reached the 4.0 stage: – Innovation 1.0: Technology-driven innovation (technology push) With the industrial revolution, economy of scale was adopted. Millions of people were ready to buy everything produced because even their basic needs were not met. Therefore, in these conditions, competitive advantage came from quickly implementing production technologies and producing in large volumes. It was even impossible to say that there was a competition. Producers were few, supply was limited, and demand was high. Every manufactured product was easily sold. Therefore, R&D departments were strong because they decided what the new product would be. This continued until the 1960s. – Innovation 2.0: Market-driven innovation (market pull) As new producers entered the market, competition intensified. Technological advancements lowered barriers to entry. As alternative producers increased, the need for differentiation arose. If there were 5 companies producing a glass cup or a porcelain plate, and all their products were almost the same, the customer needed a reason to choose. Therefore, Marketing departments were established to attract customers. Power relations within the institution began to change. R&D began to share its authority with Marketing. In fact, Marketing teams gained a stronger position than R&D as they used advanced techniques to analyze customer wants and needs. Now, Marketing decided what should be produced. – Innovation 3.0: Open innovation As technology developed exponentially, it became impossible for companies to specialize in all technologies. Therefore, the necessity of doing innovation with external stakeholders instead of just internal resources and teams emerged. Startups, incubators, universities, and other actors began to be part of innovation processes. How effectively collective creation (co-creation) and development (co-development) processes were managed determined competitiveness. Innovation took the place of R&D, opposite…