R&D and innovation are two related but distinct concepts. My aim is not to delve into the subtle semantic differences between the two but to explore, as an information systems researcher, some organizational factors that may impact individual innovators. My focus is exclusively on information technology and information systems innovation within a corporate setting. 

In my view, Research & Development (R&D) is a systematic process of exploring existing methods, techniques, and processes within an organization to improve upon them or discover new applications. This involves thorough investigation, experimentation, analysis, and refinement aimed at creating solutions that can enhance productivity, efficiency, quality, and competitiveness in the marketplace. The methods, techniques, and processes are either available internally or can be procured free or bought. The focus is on finding the organizational fit for a known solution. 

The R&D process typically comprises several stages:  

1. Identification of the pain points. (Problem space) 

2. Identification of potential solutions. (Solution space) 

3. Gap analysis and research objectives. 

4. Experimental design and execution. 

5. Interpretation. 

6. Reporting back to stakeholders and decision-makers. 

R&D is potentially scalable by increasing the team size. Individuals work as a team to solve problems. It is easy to track and monitor progress. Documentation is the key to externalizing the gained knowledge to the organizational memory for the use and reuse of knowledge, ensuring transparency and continuous learning within the organization. Moreover, utilizing collaboration tools and project management software will streamline communication between team members, facilitating effective knowledge sharing and reducing potential bottlenecks. As the R&D department grows, it is essential to maintain an agile mindset.  

As the focus is on finding the organizational fit for a known IT artifact, the recommendations have little relevance outside the organization; and as such are not publishable. This is not to discount any attempt to tease out generalizable knowledge from R&D initiatives and publish them as papers. The notion of “failed R&D” applies only if you treat the identification of an IT artifact as unsuitable for the organization as a failed R&D project. I do not believe you should! 

In contrast, innovation is the pursuit of the unknown. The idea, method or process is either not obvious (it may be obvious in hindsight), or it is outright novel and disruptive. It involves pushing boundaries, challenging pre-existing norms and beliefs, and exploring uncharted territories to create something new. Innovation often requires creativity, critical thinking, and a willingness to take calculated risks. It is driven by curiosity, passion for learning, and an unyielding desire to find better solutions to complex problems. 

Innovation is risky with a high failure rate. Innovation teams are typically small, and members often work in isolation. Most innovation teams maintain some secrecy as the potential worth of some of the artifacts generated is not immediately apparent. Successful innovation projects offer substantial rewards such as competitive advantage, market differentiation, and the opportunity for disruptive breakthroughs that can revolutionize industries or create entirely new ones. Innovation artifacts are often valuable outside the organization and publishable as new knowledge sources. However, it is uncommon to publish or even document the interim artifacts. Most innovation artifacts are “ideas” in the innovator’s mind. 

Many organizations (knowingly or unknowingly) club R&D and innovation teams together and try to blur the boundaries. This may be due to many reasons: 

1. Innovation has a high failure rate. Combining both teams can hedge against the risk of failure. 

2. Combining both teams may encourage knowledge sharing. 

3. True innovation teams are expensive to maintain, and turnover rates are high. 

4. Many innovators are averse to structure organizational norms and culture. 

5. Innovation team may be unaware of organizational facilities, needs and requirements. 

Though all these reasons are valid, combining R&D and innovation teams reduces the chances of disruptive innovation. The decision to or not to combine R&D and innovation teams depends on the organization’s aspirations.