What does it take to actually do an innovation?

First and foremost, the organization itself must participate. Otherwise it is considered an external innovation, possibly an acquired one from another party - and that would only require a nose for a good buy.

Secondly, to have a fair chance for the innovation to survive its infancy, it requires the active participation of the customer. More specifically, as Associate Professor Peter Magnusson at the Center for Service Innovation at Karlstad University advocate in his videos, open innovation radically raises the probability to get the smartest people to join forces and co-innovate with the organization. And moreover, these smart customers will have unique user knowledge of both existing products and services and what it takes to be successful in the future.

In my own experience as an IT systems developer, I certainly can affirm that. In a few rare occasions, where the outcome was truly innovative and successful, I teamed up with a (one) customer representative in a very specific way. As I now recall it, in the light of Magnusson's theories, there are a few prerequisites that made the success possible:

1. My expert knowledge and the users deep knowledge from practicing
2. Our true interest in the other party and his field of knowledge, willingness to learn from each other and to give up old standpoints
3. For the user to realize that his role is to provide the problem, not the solution
4. For me to realize that my role is to provide the solution, not to add to or modify the problem
5. For the both of us to be dedicated enough not to give up, even though it looks impossible from start and will take endless iterations until we can finalize
6. The cooperation must be sound, equal and mutually rewarding

Magnusson uses the term lead user, as a user with both use knowledge and technology knowledge. I would say that to have technology knowledge is not necessary and might even lead to problems. More important is that the user doesn't restrict his thinking to what's technically possible - from real or imagined limitations. This way his problem description might seem unsolvable to a rigid expert on the basis of old technology and routines, but would be gold worth as the problem basis for an innovation. For me, as the expert, I have to acknowledge the description and use all my knowledge, experience and inventiveness to find a solution that reaches out and solves the problem. In practice, it's a dialogue where we step by step rephrase, tweak, and reconsider, until we have found the best solution and problem compromise - including aspects as feasibility, cost, producability etc. In this dialogue, we would have made loads of drawings, mock-ups and at least a few working prototypes. Even though my experience is from programming, I would say this way of working in a close companionship should be considered for any product or service innovation.

Could this be scaled up to cover more complex products or services? Yes, I think so. My experiences covers two persons, but I believe it very well can be re-written to guide any innovation project. Possibly with the addition that it requires a dedicated project leader.

Oh, one more thing: you need fuel. This can be very personal, like for a friend of mine who propelled himself thru the education system to become a plastic surgeon because of a an accident that crippled his friend. For me it's much easier - just tell me it's impossible.