{
  "id": 4617155,
  "title": "I’m the ‘dean of innovation’ and I know that nobody can agree what ‘innovation’ actually means",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/31/im-the-dean-of-innovation-and-i-know-that-nobody-can-agree-what",
  "topic": "finance",
  "section": "Finance & Markets",
  "published": "2026-08-31T09:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Fortune",
    "slug": "fortune",
    "url": "https://fortune.com/2026/08/31/jeff-degraff-dean-of-innovation-nobody-can-agree-what-it-means/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Imagine an executive team discussing their most pressing strategic priority: artificial intelligence. Each leader has a different vision for AI's role within the organization. While everyone agrees that AI is the future, they depart on what innovation truly entails. This conundrum is a common problem within large organizations. They use one word, \"innovation,\" to describe vastly different kinds of work. The challenge lies in the fact that the term \"innovation\" is used broadly, leading to confusion and misaligned expectations. As the \"Dean of Innovation\" for nearly four decades, I have worked with numerous Fortune 500 companies, the U.S. military, and various cultural organizations. My experience has taught me that people often use the word \"innovation\" without a clear understanding of what it means. The result is that resources become scattered, expectations clash, and initiatives are managed with the wrong processes and metrics. Instead of asking if a project is innovative, organizations should focus on comparing it with what already exists. Innovation is essentially positive deviance from the norm that creates value. The same practice can be revolutionary in one company, incremental in another, and obsolete in a third. When considering AI and other emerging technologies, leaders should ask two key questions: what norm are we breaking and what new value are we creating, and for whom? Without these answers, \"innovation\" loses its meaning and becomes just another corporate aspiration. Consider Nvidia's success in AI computing. While AI capabilities were extended into new arenas, the real innovation lies in departing from the existing norm and creating new value. However, the farther an idea departs from the norm, the more challenging it becomes to prove its viability. Executives are accustomed to demanding evidence before investing resources, which is generally good management. Yet, this can hinder innovation. The more genuinely novel an idea, the less reliable historical data becomes. When a company enters an uncharted market or deploys a rapidly changing technology, traditional ROI models become unreliable. Companies that wait for certainty end up learning more slowly, missing out on potential opportunities. The data trap arises when executives demand too much proof, inadvertently selecting for familiar ideas and stunting innovation. The solution lies in embracing experimentation. In established operations, data informs action, but in innovation, action often creates the data. Experiments should not be seen as a means to validate a plan, but rather as a way to generate knowledge from which a plan can eventually be built. Finally, organizations must recognize that innovation is not a single activity. It encompasses various forms of change, from optimization to transformation. For instance, improving route efficiency at UPS is an optimization challenge, while responding to a cyberattack demands a different approach. Building AI-enabled services requires navigating uncertainty around customers, pricing, and business models. Each scenario requires good management tailored to its specific needs. Leaders should assess the magnitude of the departure from what they already know, the speed at which they must move, and the level of uncertainty involved. Based on these factors, they can determine the appropriate team, funding, governance, metrics, and pace for each initiative. In conclusion, the real issue in large organizations is not a lack of innovation, but rather a lack of clarity in how we talk about it. By focusing on what norm we are breaking and what new value we are creating, and adapting our approach based on the unique challenges of each situation, we can move beyond the confusion surrounding the term \"innovation\" and truly drive meaningful change within our organizations.",
  "summary": "Your company doesn’t have an innovation problem, says Michigan Ross professor Jeff DeGraff. It Has a Language Problem.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}