The process of innovation is rarely gradual and occurs as pivotal events.

Far from incrementalism, change comes as part of a strategic plan that is both smart and opportunistic.

A ubiquitous mantra of today can be captured in one word—"innovate." From business leaders to homemakers to athletes, the need to innovate and serve the “I want it when I want it” demon seems to know no bounds.

To survive in today’s aggressive world, we are often challenged to out-think and out-innovate the competition. And out of this wet, murky reality can often crawl the unexpected and unanticipated. Born with a spine of conviction, this new and evolved techno-creature emerges with its “fight or flight” response transferred to the techno-limbic desire to “disrupt and transform.” The beast of innovation isn’t smooth and accommodating, it’s rough and disruptive. Yet the desire, or even social imperative for transformation still looms over us all. Social change, climate change, monitory change, political change, and a host of other “changes” are engaged in a cacophony of desire.

I’m reminded of Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of punctuated equilibrium and its observations on evolution. Simply put, Gould suggested that the gradual change doesn’t happen. A long period of status is punctuated by more rapid and defining change that disrupts the equilibrium, or status quo. And interestingly, these evolutionary changes don’t necessarily emerge as part of the mainstream, but also in isolated populations. In other words, disruption can come out of left field, and can change small or large and well-entrenched systems. 

Take a closer look and we may see that evolution—or innovation in this case—can be found in isolated pockets that might have unique or even nurturing environments. Yet it's these "pockets of change" that gave rise to the complete evolutionary dynamic. The path of human transformation might be best served to embrace innovation as a punctuated initiative at key points in a longer and well-defined process. The application of innovation randomly, in the form of a senior management decree or a flurry of angry tweets just might be both wasteful and ineffective. And ultimately, the lack of result may doom that entire innovation initiative itself.

Perhaps, innovation is less pure magic of creativity and more a function of timing and carefully "injected" stimuli into a more conventional process. Of course, the trick is finding the right points where external stimuli can drive real change. It's far from incrementalism, but a strategic perspective that is both smart and opportunistic. But as Gould has suggested, we may wish to apply the lightning of change more carefully to help shape the process of innovation and transformation. Otherwise, it’s just another swamp.