Does corporate innovation need a methodology?

Using a methodology to spur innovation in your company sounds like a great idea, but the concept that your innovation program should fit into prescribed “rules” is misguided. Innovation comes in many shapes and sizes and generally abhors a rules-based environment which seeks to constrain or force it into a particular form or shape.
I’ve had the privilege of running an innovation lab that was uniquely positioned to do two things: sell technology to other labs and act as a “developer for hire” to create fintech for financial service clients. This meant innovation labs and innovators were both my clients and my col-leagues. This gave me a unique point of view that has allowed me to analyze first-hand their failures and successes. Running IBM’s innovation efforts in fintech within their “cognitive studio” I’ve seen what corporate innovation practices work and which clearly do not. What be-came abundantly clear is that no single lab or program is a perfect model for success (or failure).
Out of this environment, I started to consider what series or group of practices could be used to foster innovation in the corporate environment. This stemmed from an analysis of what conditions led to success, and which led to failure. From this, I devised a list of best practices – essentially rules of conduct – that facilitate the adoption of innovation. Instead of taking an approach that is prescriptive in a cookie-cutter way (do this, do that), these practices help foster innovation in an ever-changing and inherently unpredictable set of circumstances. Which ones we adopt or reject specifically isn’t as important as recognizing that these practices in sum and in part help foster a holistic, company-wide innovation mindset [ ... ]