Yesterday I had an interesting talk with Wim Vanhaverbeke who is an expert on open innovation. For example he is a coauthor of Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. To give some idea of the talk I would like to tell about open-innovation as false-negatives. One of the many thing I've learned yesterday.
Most businesses are interested in false-positive innovations. This are innovation that promised to be good but don't deliver. It is understandable that business don't like false-positives as they lose the investment. False-negatives is what open innovation is about: project that have been declined, but once in another context (or culture) turned out to be great. Xerox PARC has several examples of false-negatives. Although business don't have much attention to false-negatives, they should. Examples show that most companies create their own competition (like the Xerox PARC or IBM hard-disks, see the open-innovation book).
What I like about false-positive & false-negative is the possibility to categorize innovation. The false-negative would mean categorize disruptive innovation. I do need to mention that in previous writings I didn't make a distinction between radical innovation and disruptive innovation. It seems I'm mostly talking about disruptive innovation. I like to focus on those innovation that can not be made by an existing knowledge base but requires creativity and novel insights or stuff you can not be sure of until it is tried out. In relation to my system approach to novelty (the novelty-action design), I do see a challenge to create a test-frame for false-negatives.