Dina Mehta blogged this about my post about the difference between creativity and innovation:

"The word innovation implies creativity - without creativity there cannot be innovation. But the reverse may not be true.


I like this distinction -- "Is innovation the practical application of creative thought?" -- Bob Filipczak. Is it the difference between discovery and invention? Or expression versus invention? Art is Expression, not an invention. An electric bulb is an invention, not an expression. Invention generally serves some specific purpose of the greater populace. Expression is a fulfillment of a personal desire. During the Renaissance, inventors and artists, creative expression and innovation were almost synonymous. Think of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci.


Today perhaps with so much specialisation, we see few Renaissance Men and fewer Renaissance teams."

I don’t know if she saw my subsequent post on this subject, but my “think of creativity as an individual enterprise and innovation as a group enterprise” does kind of dovetail with her observation of invention (innovation) as a purpose-driven activity and expression (creativity) as the fulfillment of a personal desire.

I wonder if when she says “specialization” she is thinking in terms of business specialization or in terms of people specializing in either invention or expression but not both. Either of these, I suppose, could lead to “fewer Renaissance men (and women!) and Renaissance teams.”

And that would be a shame. I believe there is a difference between innovation and creativity, though I don’t know if I have it very well described yet. And I think we need three kinds of people: We need a mix of inventors, expressors and people who are called to do and be both. In a word, Renaissance people: inventive expressors, expressive inventors; innovative creators and creative innovators.

We can’t necessarily be Renaissance-ian investigators, though. All aspects of these separate entities -- innovation and creativity -- must be examined in order to understand the whole. It strikes me that this is what we’re all doing -- when Joyce writes about the discipline of innovation, Henry about open innovation, John about interfirm innovation, and myself about ideas and creativity, I suspect we’re all trying to understand the parts that make up the whole.