Why is Philosophy Necessary for Innovation?

One of the meanings of innovation that has changed throughout history is rebellion and revolt. The roots of the concept of "corporate rebel" should be sought here. Philosophy is the rebellion of human's limited mind against the infinite power of the universe. Philosophy has no boundaries. It thinks without limits. It opens everything to discussion. It has no dogmas or taboos. For innovation, we need people who think without limits . More importantly, we need corporate rebels who know how to think systematically. In my speeches and trainings, I usually say, "we should approach innovation with a need-oriented rather than product-oriented approach" . But can we approach it with a desire-oriented approach instead of a need-oriented approach? This is a philosophical question that touches psychology and psychoanalysis. Science is not innovation, but innovation is science. Innovation management is a subset of management sciences. Every change begins with an idea, an idea, a theory. Management science generally draws inspiration from theories produced in other social sciences. Theories in social sciences are nourished by philosophy. Therefore, philosophy is the artery that feeds and shapes science. Academia knows this weaving well. Unlike natural or applied sciences, social scientists (PhD, Doctor of Philosophy) are familiar with ontological and epistemological discussions. What is reality, is it singular? Is meaning subjective? How do we find reality? Innovation and entrepreneurship processes proceed in parallel with scientific research processes. You scan the literature or the market and see a gap. You develop a hypothesis to fill this gap. You collect and analyze data to confirm your hypothesis. If the results are positive, you move on to production. Steve Blank and Eric Ries's "Lean Startup" develops prototypes (MVP) in exactly this way. If you are in the positivist camp epistemologically in academia, you design and conduct a different research; if you are in the interpretivist camp, you do different research. If you are 'objectivist' ontologically, you do different research and get different results; if you are constructivist, you do another. Empirical research leads us to knowledge, but the method/method determines the result. The root of every question and the coordinates where we seek the answer to the question lie in philosophical schools (paradigm). Even the philosophical camp behind the scientific methods and methods we use while trying to find an answer to the question is determinative. For example, while natural scientists mostly conduct quantitative research, qualitative research is important for social scientists. Ethnographic or anthropological research, which we use in the discovery process of innovation, is qualitative, for example. Because we are trying to understand human psychology and behaviors. Some basic questions that will lead us to innovation: How do we discover and define people's needs? How do they meet their needs? What do they do step by step? Do they sometimes postpone these needs? Do they reduce the frequency of purchase? Or do they develop their own solutions instead of buying a solution? It is impossible to answer these questions about innovation without being nourished by philosophy and social sciences. Individual successes and inventions are always possible. However, if we are talking about innovation management, what is in question are systematic and sustainable innovations, not coincidental ones. Everythi…