"You know what the difference is between a scientist and an engineer? Engineers hate surprises"
Think about that. It's actually quite true. Engineers love control (maybe that's why they are not famed for their people skills), all this PDCA, everything in its place and a place for everything, continually improving things by reducing the degree of variation in specification and performance, all of that. But what's an engineer's natural reaction to the unexpected or, god forbid, a failure? Now we're not saying that this discipline (engineering) is without great merit, because it clearly does have great merit, but is it a typically innovative discipline? Whenever we think about true innovators we tend to think of an inquisitive outlook, a curious type that revels in the unexpected, one that likes surprises and accepts failures as a key milestone on the voyage of discovery. What's more there is some research that suggests that this our more natural state, and an outlook that has put our species where it is
Sometimes the lines can be blurred and confusion can reign with regard to what constitutes innovation. Does it necessarily suggest the creation of something new? Or can it include just making something we already have, better? Problem is, everyone like to think of themselves as "innovative" and that can lead to some very broad definitions (just like "healthy eating", "sensible drinking" or "ideal weight"), but let's think about the concept of failure for a moment. In order to achieve step changes, we actually need them, nothing ventured, nothing gained. If that's your outlook, then you're a true SCIENTIST, and an innovator, my friend
For Deming's view on innovation, check out this post from Curious Cat
