A number of the commenters on the what drives innovation posts have come to the conclusion that the answer is quite simple: People drive innovation; therefore, the key to driving innovation is to help an organization foster a culture of innovation for its own employees.

For the record, I absolutely agree. And also for the record, I think that agreeing with that statement and still continuing my effort to determine what drives innovation -- other than people -- isn't contradictory.

My reasons go back to almost a year ago, when we had a discussion here on IdeaFlow about whether innovation is a process or a religion. To recap some of that discussion, I'll quote:

"There seem to be two camps regarding innovation -- those who view it as something of a religion, a state of mind, a way of thinking that can't really be measured very well, and those who view it as a process that can be predicted, managed, and measured in order to result in new business models, business processes, and products that will increase growth. The truly successful innovators, I believe, will be those who can embrace both of these kinds of thinking about innovation."

I still think we need to embrace both these kinds of thinking, the same way I think we need to embrace an effort to understand in general and in specific all of the things that drive innovation, as well as to embrace an effort to understand in particular how people drive innovation.

Why? First -- yes, absolutely, people drive innovation. Period.

But -- in order to be successful, innovation must meet whatever objectives have been set for the success of that innovation. In order to determine best how to meet those objectives, people must work within, and with, all the factors that are driving innovation for that company in that particular place and time. In order to do that, people have to know and understand those factors intimately, especially the way these factors affect each other.

I'll call the set of those factors the particular "conditions of possibility" for innovation for that company at that place and time. I use the term "conditions of possibility" here with a specific nod to Foucault, meaning "the set of relations within which...other factors gain their sense." I also like this term because my usage of the term "drivers" causes some confusion with people who think I am talking only of sources of innovation. I see a difference between drivers and sources (about which more in a later post), and using "conditions of possibility" may avoid that confusion.

So, I am not advocating for innovation models and equations here -- I am advocating for people's ability to make sense of the conditions of possibility for innovation, for their immersion in the religion of innovation to be solid enough that they can become masters of the process of innovation.

I'll end with a fascinating comment from Jeffrey Baumgartner:

"Motivating corporate innovation also touches upon a critical issue that is largely ignored in innovation: organisational versus individual innovation. It is relatively easy to determine what motivates an individual to innovate. Indeed, you can write it into a book, give the book to the individual and very possibly she will agree with what is in the book and behave in a more innovative manner.

"Moreover, if she runs a small company - with no more than a handful of staff - she can even use what she has learned to make her company more innovative. Small individually-owned and -operated companies are generally motivated by the owner-manager.

"But, a medium-sized or large company cannot pick up a book and be motivated to be more innovative. Likewise, the CEO cannot wave a magic wand and transform her company into an innovative one, no matter what she has just read.

"And while one might assume that if a large company was full of innovative people it would naturally be innovative itself, that would be wrong."