Organisations spend tons of money to keep innovating - to stay ahead of competition, win new deals, get more efficient and in some cases just to survive.
There is no analyst call/management review/press release /advertisement that does not speak of innovation by companies.
Then why is it that it is said to happen at fringes?
Is it organisational lethargy and comfort with the status-quo?
Is it urgent overtaking the important?
Is it the pressure for quarterly results ( there are no 3 year or 5 year results apparently :-) ?
Is it the gap between intent and execution?
Is it the gap between the senior management vision and ground level appreciation ?
Perhaps its all the above.
Organisations encourage innovation at floor level but most tend to be incremental improvements that shine in pockets/ are known in small corners/ have marginal impact on the mainstream revenue engine.
An Amazon has taken over a decade to perfect itself and is now beating not just competitors but industry categories altogether ( Brick and Mortar retailers, Fashion stores, Groceries, Book shops, Music and Entertainment industry.... ).
A platform like that has billion customers who can easily be provided services such as financial services at little or no cost of acquisition and maintenance. What will that do to traditional large established banks and financial institutions?
What would it take Amazon to become an insurance service provider ( offering the same level of customer orientation minus the complacency ) ?
True disruptors need time and focus to develop into killers. Those disruptor ideas need different mindset and unleashed creativity to pivot and perfect. The expectations from all stakeholders including the creators/stakeholders are different.
Are the traditional organisation structures/models amenable to these disruptors?
