There are myths surrounding creativity. The intangible nature of Essay - 1

There are myths surrounding creativity. The intangible nature of creativity does not lend itself to easy definition - Essay Example It takes place generally when the recent product plan is really implemented (Thompson, 1965). The author favours this definition because it makes creativity or innovation tangible as well as measurable relatively than a theoretical concept. In organization, innovation is observed as a relating process consisting of different stages. First stage is expressed as the commencement stage where the new proposal is introduced, authorized, and established for adoption. Next stage is described as the implementation phase which comprises of the changes in the actual management that happens in the company, as the modernization is placed into operation (Rogers, 1983). The aim of the paper is to explain the hypothesis of different models and theories on innovation and to focus on the fact that how innovation is important for the organization. This model is projected by Eric Von Hippel, which explains the type of innovation whereby the users originates the changes as well as carry out distribution and production. This model could also be relevant to the physical products. Innovation is reasonably viable to handle without a producer if three circumstances are satisfied: the continuation of an inducement for the users to create or innovate; the continuation of an incentive in order to disclose innovations; and the probability to allocate innovations at the low cost. This model describes interesting patterns of innovation that have possibly existed in certain areas but have not been observed until now by the specialists of innovation (Haddon, 2006). It proposed that the manufacture as innovator postulation is wrong; a new means to classify investors has been planned. It explains that the innovation of product could initiate from any one of the three distinct sources i.e. users, producers and suppliers; who are also considere d as innovators (Edquist, Hommen and Tsipouri, 2000). The main consequence is that the ‘distributed innovation procedure’