So Pete Mortensen comments that the reason we don’t see more coverage of sideways innovation is that it simply isn’t sexy.

I agree - my point isn’t that sideways innovation never happens. It’s that it doesn’t seem to happen systematically in most organizations. As I pointed out in my original post, Procter & Gamble have their Connect and Develop approach highlighted in Harvard Business Review. The reason it was worth calling out is that it’s so unusual.

I haven’t been to innovation school - are there whole semesters dedicated to sideways innovation? Are there whole tracks at conferences? Are there disciplinary specialists, books, and academic journals? Do conversations about implementing corporate innovation programs always include a sideways innovation strategy, and follow up that strategy with a program that’s given top people and funding? Given the success rate compared to traditional invention-focused R&D, sideways innovation merits all of the above, but I just don’t see it happening. Instead, we get ridiculous articles like this one in the Financial Times which paints innovation as the act of a genius inventor hero, instead of a consistent program that shifts mindset and culture, embraces a wide team in and outside of the organization, and where "not-invented-here" triggers visions of ROI.

Of course heroes make better copy than discovering solutions from other industries and applying them in novel ways. So what can be done to boost the sex appeal of sidways innovation? In conversations we can bring up things like triple and quadruple digit returns, speed to market, decreased risk, and competitive advantage over invention-bound competitors. What else?