Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8

Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge

Conceptual paper

Innovation for creating a smart future

Sang M. Lee a , Silvana Trimi b,∗
a
Department of Management, University of Nebraska, 209 CBA, UNL, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491, USA
b
Department of Supply Chain Management and Analytics, University of Nebraska, 251 CBA, UNL, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Today, we live in a dynamic and turbulent global community. The wave of mega-trends, including rapid
Received 23 October 2016 change in globalization and technological advances, is creating new market forces. For any organization
Accepted 6 November 2016 to survive and prosper in such an environment, innovation is imperative. However, innovation is no
Available online 27 December 2016
longer just for creating value to benefit individuals, organizations, or societies. The ultimate purpose of
innovation should be much more far reaching, helping create a smart future where people can enjoy the
JEL classification: best quality of life possible. Thus, innovation must search for intelligent solutions to tackle major social
O
ills, seek more proactive approaches to predict the uncertain future, and pursue strategies to remove
B
barriers to the smart future. This study explores the detailed requirements of a smart future, including
Keywords: both hardware types and soft social/cultural components.
Innovation classification © 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access
Value creation article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Smart future
Well-being index

Introduction the world. What is common to all these entities is that they all pur-
sue innovation for better preparation of the future (Canton, 2015;
Innovation has been the main task of humans throughout Drucker, 1985). However, innovation should not be for passively
history (Lee, 2015). To survive and improve the quality of life, being future smart by preparing to meet the uncertain future by
continuous innovation efforts have been imperative. All major being predictive, adaptive, and agile. Instead, innovation should be
revolutionary waves of human history – agricultural, industrial, for more aggressively active in creating a smart future that provides
information, and now convergence – are all about innovation for more opportunities for a better quality of life.
creating new and better value (Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2012). Political The term “smart” has been used widely nowadays, for example,
leaders exhort the importance of innovation for social justice smartphones, smart cars, smart homes, smart infrastructure, smart
and a better quality living environment for the citizens. Global cities, smart countries, and the like. The term “smart” represents the
executives stress the importance of continuous innovation for concept of hope and aspiration that depends on a person’s perspec-
new products/services and ventures for customers, yet 94 percent tive. The smart state depends on the given condition, environment,
expressed dissatisfaction with their innovation performance culture, and the person’s value system. Nevertheless, the general
(Christiansen, Hall, Dillon & Duncan, 2016). Managers of non-profit concept of a smart future should mean a living environment which
organizations pursue innovation to challenge the social ills of the is much better than the current state of affairs.
economic divide, digital divide, and goal divide (Lee, 2015). The The smart future should be where innovation would help
purpose of innovation is much more profound than just creating develop intelligent solutions to complex problems to secure a
greater customer value, better competitive advantage of firms, humane environment (Streitz, 2015). In such a smart future, peo-
and an environment for better quality of life. The ultimate goal ple can more freely pursue opportunities to learn and grow, be
of innovation should be the creation of a better future. The “small engaged in good relationships, be happy with the community and
i” for innovation is for an individual, organization, society, or work place, and also have a comfortable and healthy life style with
country. However, the “Large I” should be innovation for creating adequate financial resources (Gallup-Healthways, 2015). Creating
a smart future. such a smart future requires much more than just smart gadgets,
The benefits of innovation may accrue to individuals, groups advanced technologies, convergence strategies, and government
of people, communities, industries, societies, nations, regions, and support. It requires a fabric of soft innovations that can nurture an
aspirational future such as social justice, rule of law, transparency,
∗ Corresponding author. accountability, cohesive collective wisdom of people, and shared
E-mail address: silvana@unl.edu (S. Trimi). visions and goals (Kramer & Pfitzer, 2016; Porter & Kramer, 2011).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.11.001
2444-569X/© 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8

In this paper, we will explore the definition of a smart future, Tushman, 2015; March, 1991). Incremental innovation involves con-
requirements for creating an environment for the well-being of tinuous improvement of what is already known. Japanese firms
people, application of fast advancing science and technologies, and have made great strides in expanding their global market pres-
creative convergence strategies that support aspirational innova- ence by emphasizing Kaizen (e.g., Kawasaki, Sony, Toyota, etc.). This
tion efforts, ideas that can disrupt the barriers to a smart future, type of innovation usually takes relatively short periods of time.
and the soft social requirements that are fundamental for devel- Studies have shown that a majority of innovations is of this type
oping shared visions for a smart future. This paper is organized as but such innovations contribute less than one-third of total profits.
follows. In “Innovation for value creation” section, we discuss the That means firms cannot sustain their competitiveness by focusing
purpose, classification, and organizational purpose of innovation. primarily on incremental innovations.
“Innovation life cycle” section presents innovation life cycle from Radical innovation involves exploration of the unknown. Many
idea generation to harvesting on the S-curve. The concept of a smart new inventions, patents, or business models represent such inno-
future is articulated in “What is smart future?” section, while the vations (e.g., parallel processing systems, digital cameras, 3-D
requirements for creating a smart future is presented in “Require- technology, DNA sequencing, e-business, sharing economy, and the
ments of a smart future” section. “Innovations that disrupt barriers like). This type of innovation usually takes a long period of time
to the smart future” section discusses innovations that can disrupt for R&D, experiments, regulatory approvals or market acceptance.
barriers to a smart future. “Conclusion” section concludes the paper Explorative innovation may be initiated for the existing market.
by proposing the soft social requirements for s smart future. However, the ultimate purpose of such innovation is to become
the first mover in a newly created blue ocean market which pro-
vides new values to the customer and generates new profits (Kim &
Innovation for value creation
Mauborgne, 2005). With the advent of the digital age, the locus of
innovation has expanded beyond the boundaries of organizations
Today, business executives, political leaders, educational
to global open innovation communities for co-innovation (Adner,
administrators and even religious leaders all exclaim the innova-
2001; Afuah & Tucci, 2013; Benner & Tushman, 2015; Chesbrough,
tion imperative. In a broad sense, innovation is synonymous with
2003; Lee & Olson, 2010).
change (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997). Change can be due to nat-
Most organizations cannot focus only on one type of innova-
ural phenomena, the intentional design of human ingenuity, or
tion, either exploitative or explorative. Many organizations possess
collaborative efforts of individuals (Lee & Olson, 2010). Scientific
certain core competencies that have been built over time. These
breakthroughs, technological advances, inspiring ideas that moti-
competencies can be improved continuously to enhance pro-
vate the masses, and the like are all changes that are often the
ductivity for generating additional financial returns (Benner &
outcomes of innovation. However, many innovations never see the
Tushman, 2015). However, they cannot simply dwell on improv-
light of the day. Many new scientific and scientific developments
ing their existing core competence in the fast changing and volatile
may contribute to the existing body of knowledge but they may not
market environment. Thus, explorative innovation is imperative.
be economically feasible for actual implementation (Schumpeter,
The critical strategic question is how organizations should bal-
1934).
ance exploitative and explorative innovation so that they can
In this paper, we define innovation as new ideas that are actually
leverage their current core competencies while simultaneously
applied in fundamentally different ways to generate new and/or
striving to develop new competitive advantage through explorative
additional value (Lee & Olson, 2010). We further assume that
innovation. An organization which can achieve a proper balance
innovation is for the benefit of all stakeholders, not just the idea
between the two types of innovation cannot only reduce the ten-
generator or the organization. Recently, a number of countries have
sions between the two major streams of innovation (March, 1991;
adopted innovation as their national agenda. For example, Singa-
O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013) but also pursue synergistic effects of
pore proclaimed “creating a smart country” as its national priority,
their strengths (Lee, 2015). Thus, ambidextrous innovation strives to
with innovation at its building block (Sim, 2015).
develop dynamic capabilities so that organizational strategies are
With the fast changing market forces (e.g., globalization,
congruent with the fast changing market situations, such as global
digitization, changing demographics and industry mix, global
conditions, technological advances, changing demographics, global
urbanization trend, environmental issues, the new economic influ-
urbanization trends, environmental sustainability efforts, and the
ence of emerging nations, etc.), the strategic focus of innovation
like (Raisch, Birkinsoshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009; Teece, 2014;
has also evolved (Lee et al., 2012). Organizations used to empha-
Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997), while continuously improving its exist-
size innovation for finding new ways to do things right, focusing on
ing competitive advantage.
quality management and improving the efficiency of the nuts-and-
Disruptive innovation is a complex concept. However, the basic
bolts work in the value chain (e.g., cost cutting, waste minimization,
notion is that firms tend to overshoot their markets with new tech-
speed, etc.) (Schonberger, 2008). Then, the strategic emphasis
nological advances for the mainstream of customers, thus creating
shifted to how to do right things. In this phase, problem-solving,
a market for newcomers that can even overthrow the incumbent
decision-making, and effectiveness of the value chain are empha-
market leaders (Adner, 2001; Christensen, Rayner, & McDonald,
sized (business process reengineering, decision support systems,
2015). A good example would be Xiaomi which has introduced
enterprise systems, etc.). With the increasingly uncertain and
very cheap but excellent smartphones for economy minded cus-
volatile global market environment, today most organizations put
tomers and has become a market leader in China. Xiaomi’s business
their strategic emphasis on how to do new things, placing radi-
model disrupted the existing market and the rules of competi-
cal innovation as the strategic priority of the organization (March,
tion. However, recently, other new Chinese smartphone producers,
1991).
such as Vivo, Oppo, and OnePlus, are making significant inroads
into Xiaomi’s market share by using their own unique disruptive
Innovation classification innovation strategies (Gilbert, 2016).

Innovation has been classified in many different ways in the Evolution of innovation
literature. However, many studies have suggested the follow-
ing four broad classifications: incremental (exploitative), radical Innovation has also been discussed based on its evolution (Lee
(explorative), ambidextrous and disruptive innovation (Benner & & Olson, 2010). Innovation 1.0 can be labeled as closed innovation.
 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8 3

In this phase, innovation is organization bound and thus most of (5) Reformulating business models using new ICTs such as Internet
the new ideas are the result of the organization’s internal R&D for of Things (IoT) (Chui, Loffler, & Roberts, 2010; Kavadias, Ladas
developing its own unique core competencies (Lee et al., 2012). & Loch, 2016; Lenovo, 2015).
Many first mover market leaders in the past relied on this type
of innovation (e.g., Bell Lab, Proctor and Gamble (invented here), Every organization has missions, visions, goals, objectives, and
NASA (as only NASA can), and the like).
strategic plans. The purpose of all organizational efforts is to make
Innovation 2.0 represents collaborative innovation. In this phase,
the above-described value creation areas more effective. Thus,
organizations collaborate with external sources or partners for
organizations are concerned about how to prioritize and/or bal-
value chain innovation (Tapscott, 2006). Many global firms, such as ance the five value creation areas so that their innovation efforts
Apple, Dell, Mattel, Zara, Boeing, etc. all rely on such innovations. are properly focused on maximizing organizational performance
Innovation 3.0 is for open innovation where organizations search
(Govindarajan, 2016).
for new sources of innovation from both internally and externally
Among the five value creation areas, the last three have seen
(Chesbrough, 2003). Some researchers suggest that open innova-
many new developments due to globalization, digitization, and
tion is quite similar to crowdsourcing of innovation. However, we convergenomics (Lee & Olson, 2010). Customer values usually
believe open innovation is much more purposeful and focused include reasonable price, good quality, speed, and customiza-
than broad collective intelligence or crowdsourcing (Afuah & Tucci,
tion. However, these values are market entry requirements (order
2013). There are a very large number of open innovation interme-
qualifiers) rather than sufficient conditions for sustainable compet-
diaries (we label them as “innomediaries”) in business. Some of the
itive advantage (order winners). Today customers demand beyond
best known are NineSigma, InnoCentive, YourEncore, Yet2.com, etc. utilitarian values, including hedonic (sense of safety, esthetics,
There obviously exists some degree of the seductiveness of open excitement, flow, arousal, and the like), experience, participation in
innovation, although challenges also exist (Lee et al., 2012). co-creation, sharing and opportunities to learn. Such new customer
Innovation 4.0, co-innovation, is where organizations develop
values have pushed organizations to new ways to develop products,
an innovation ecosystem to evaluate and converge ideas that are services, and business models. For example, “do it yourself (DIY)”
generated through all useful sources such as internal R&D, collab- has become a new attraction to customers in food services, jewelry
oration, open sourcing, co-creation with customers and partner making, tourism and apparel business (Von Hippel, Ozawa, & De
organizations, and the like to develop implementable innova- Long, 2011).
tion plans (Gobble, 2014; Govindarajan, 2016; Lee et al., 2012; The customer base of the organization has also changed dramat-
Ramaswammy & Ozcan, 2014). The co-innovation platform is the ically. Today organizations can have regular in-store customers,
hub of innovation web with numerous nodes and networks of smart e-customers, global customers who do business only online. In
innovation sensors.
addition, organizations may develop an entirely new blue ocean
The primary strengths of co-innovation can be summarized as
market where competition is irrelevant for newly developed
follows: products or services (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). Organizations
have also developed many new business models based on new
• Generating a continuous flow of ideas across boundaries, space technologies and convergence of ideas and technologies. Today,
and time. e-business is widespread globally; IT-enabled new sharing ser-
• Developing a large pool of knowledge by sharing IT-supported vices are everywhere such as open source software development,
data analytics (Kim, Trimi, & Chung, 2014). crowdsourcing, Uber, Airbnb, and Zipcar (Sundararajan, 2016);
• Creating a new innovation culture through shared vision and and convergence-enabled products/services are opening up new
goals (Kramer & Pfitzer, 2016; Porter & Kramer, 2011). business opportunities such as medical tourism, surgical robots,
• Designing a tacit knowledge based convergence filter which is massive open online courses (MOOCs), Instagram, SoLoMo (social,
unique and difficult to imitate by other firms. location, and mobile services) (Heinemann & Gaiser, 2015) and the
like.
Samsung Electronics and Nike are perhaps the best-known
organizations that have the most comprehensive co-innovation Innovation life cycle
programs.
In the networked digital age, organizational core competen-
cies have short life cycles. The first mover advantage may last few
Organizational value creation
months to several years before new technologies or business mod-
els turn the market upside down, as we have witnessed the demise
The main purpose of any organization is value creation. The
of Kodak, Wang Computer, Nokia, Blackberry, K-Mart, Sharp and
value being sought may be financial, public welfare, social justice, or
many others. This indicates that innovation is not a one-shot activ-
even psychological. Regardless the type of organization, whether it
ity but a process of never-ending efforts for developing sustainable
is a government agency, business enterprise, non-profit institution,
competitive advantage.
or charitable entity, there exists a value chain architecture. Then
The innovation life cycle resembles the technology S-curve, as
there are basically five areas where value can be created through
suggested by Christensen (1992). At the beginning of the curve, a
innovation, as follows (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2004; Lee & Olson,
new innovation is planted and the required resources are commit-
2010):
ted. Many innovative ideas, inventions, patents, or business models
may not even pass the feasibility phase and be discarded. Some
(1) New products, services or ventures (projects). may receive enough management support and required resources
(2) Redesigning the end-to-end value chain architecture for greater for implementation but with a short lifespan without reasonable
efficiency. returns. Some innovations may have a long life cycle with a steady
(3) Reinventing the customer value, from utilitarian to hedonic to marginal rate of return (cash cow), as shown by many consumer
experience. products such as detergents, sanitary products, and the like. The
(4) Redefining the customer base including e-market, global mar- typical innovation S-curve has the planting phase at the beginning
ket, and blue ocean. where the marginal rate of return begins to increase rapidly at an
4 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8

artificial intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT), access to all human

knowledge, and entrepreneurship to capture opportunities for the
best quality of life. Thus, a smart future is where people can freely
pursue their well-being and be optimistic about their future. In the
contemporary society, people face numerous complex problems
S2
and difficult decisions. A smart future is where people can search
for and eventually find intelligent solutions to these issues in col-
laboration with others, in support of governments or other entities,
Outco

or even alone by applying available technologies and knowledge.

Harvest innovation
Searching solutions to social problems

Inflection point Today, the new normal is “increasing uncertainty and slowing
S1 economic growth globally.” There are numerous social challenges
in every society, from conflicts due to ethnic, cultural, and political
Start planting new innovation differences to decaying inner cities, increasing crime rates, deterio-
rating environmental conditions, global jobs shortage, and the like.
Time These problems cannot be solved by the government alone. Many
social goal minded corporations realize that it is not only their cor-
Fig. 1. Innovation life cycle S-curve.
porate citizenship responsibility to respond to diverse social needs
but it also is an important contributor to their long-term sustaina-
bility in the market (Caroll & Buchholtz, 2011; Porter & Kramer,
2011). Many large organizations have undertaken numerous cor-
Outcome results

porate social responsibility (CSR) projects to face environmental

problems, inner city challenges, training the unemployed people
S2 for job skills, community development, and the like (Campbell,
2007). For example, many corporations have initiated reverse logis-
tics projects to minimize waste, reduce carbon emission, and reuse
Harvest innovation
disposed goods, often in partnership with local governments.
S1 Another development to attack the mounting social prob-
Inflection point lems is social entrepreneurship (SE). SE is a form of convergence
Planting innovation innovation, converging the passion for social mission and
Time entrepreneurship to create value for the society or common good
(Martin & Osberg, 2007). SE projects are often based on personal
Fig. 2. Continuous innovation S-curves.
funds of concerned individuals, crowdsourcing, donations, fees, or
grants from governments, NGOs and/or governments. There are
increasing rate until it reaches the inflection point. This is typically numerous SE examples. Some of the notable SE projects are (Martin
the beginning of the harvesting phase of innovation. Once the curve & Osberg, 2007; Peredo & McLean, 2006):
reaches the inflection point, the marginal rate of return begins to
diminish. The S-curve may actually nose dive. The firm may discon- • Grameen Bank, Bangladesh, founded by Dr. Muhammad Yunus:
tinue its efforts to harvest the innovation or a creative firm might Provides small loans to people around the globe to improve their
have started a new S-curve before the previous curve reaches the economic health.
peak as shown in Fig. 1. • The Institute for One World Health (IOWH), USA, established by
High-performance organizations are those that are resilient, Dr. Victoria Hale: The first nonprofit pharmaceutical company
agile, and ambidextrous (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). They strive that targets providing drugs to people in the developing world
to build dynamic capabilities in such a way that their innova- with infectious diseases who may not be able to pay for the drugs.
tion strategies are congruous with the rapidly changing market • Sekem, Egypt: Reducing pesticide use by 90% in cotton fields to
environment through maintaining an effective balance between protect the health of farmers, while creating educational institu-
continuous and radical innovations (Teece, 2014). Such organi- tions and hospitals for the poor.
zations attempt to proactively strategize continuous innovation • Revolution Foods, USA: A venture capital supported start-up that
S-curves. Furthermore, these firms try to start new S-curves from provides 60,000 healthy and nutritious meals to students daily.
above the peak of the previous S-curves by leveraging new tech-
nologies or convergence ideas as shown in Fig. 2. It is important for Most of the world’s ills today stem from three major divides:
the firm to plan for continuously riding innovation S-curves. economic, digital, and goal (Lee, 2015). The economic divide, the
ever widening gap among the have-nots, haves, and have-mores,
What is smart future? has created all sorts of social problems such as the increasing
public unrest, crimes, health issues, and the like. The public media
The concept of “smart” has many different perspectives. In this has reported that the top one percent of wealthy people in the
paper, our concept of smart is about being intelligent, proactive, world has almost 49 percent of global wealth. It has also been
purposeful, aspirational, and goal-oriented in applying innovative reported that 40 richest people have the equivalent wealth of 3.5
ideas to achieve a desired future (Smart Future Initiative, 2016). billion low-income people in the world. The United Nations (UN)
Creating a smart future is much more than just being future reported that the world has reduced the direst poverty group by 50
smart where people prepare for the possible scenarios of the percent during 2000–2015, from 3.8 billion to 1.9 billion, primarily
future so that they can better face future challenges (Canton, due to China’s economic development (Gallup, 2016). UN’s new
2015). The efforts to create a smart future require innovative goal is to cut the proportion of the remaining poverty level people
ideas to leverage ubiquitous digital connectivity, smart sensors, in half again during the next 15 years. That means by 2030 there
 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8 5

will be only about 12 percent of world population (790 million) in does not just appear as wished. There are many requirements to
the direst poverty group. The smart future needs to figure out how pursue and realize a smart future. Here we propose the following
to redistribute wealth among people so that this effort can be sped seven essentials.
up to achieve a better economic equity.
In the digital age, there is ubiquitous support of information (1) Smart people – In the dynamic global environment, with rapidly
and communication technologies (ICTs). Today, roughly 50 percent advancing technologies and knowledge, a smart future required
of world population has the Internet access and 2.5 billion peo- well educated and trained people. Some scientists estimate that
ple use smartphones daily. The digital divide is much more serious about 90 percent of the knowledge we have today has been cre-
than just distinguishing those who have the information access ated during the past 5–6 years. Also, 90 percent of data we have
through their ICT devices and those who do not. People who are today has been created during the past 2 years (Kim et al., 2014).
digitally deprived do not have access to advanced technological That means we need smart people who can contribute to cre-
devices, Internet of Things (IoT), 3-D technologies, artificial intelli- ating new knowledge, are capable of using new innovations to
gence tools, big data analytics support, cloud computing and over improve what is important in the society, and extract important
3 million apps for smartphones that can help open many opportu- pieces of intelligence from the ever increasing volume of data
nities to share knowledge with others. About one-half of the world through smart analytics. Recently, President Barack Obama of
population, 3.7 billion people, who do not have the digital tech- the U.S. announced the $4.1 billion program, “Computer Sci-
nology access will left behind in the digital world as unskilled or ence for All”, to equip all Americans to be capable citizens in
unemployed. The digital divide is especially serious for people with the ubiquitous digital age (White House Blog, 2016).
mental or physical disabilities as digital support can help overcome (2) Smart leadership – Today’s effective leaders are not just tough
some of their handicaps. decision makers, charismatic personalities, and good commu-
Perhaps the most damaging divide in modern society is goal nicators. They must be capable of co-creating shared vision and
divide. In many regions and countries of the world, people sim- goals with others for collective wisdom and discipline (Kramer
ply do not share same visions or goals. Indeed, many conflicts & Pfitzer, 2016; Ramaswammy & Ozcan, 2014). Smart leaders
in the world today seem overwhelming and almost impossible are those who can motivate and engage people in contribut-
to resolve. Thus, one of the most difficult tasks of innovation is ing to co-creation of a smart future. Advanced technologies do
how to co-create shared visions and goals among people so as not always bring shared prosperity or harmony in the society
to create a peaceful, harmonious future (Porter & Kramer, 2011; (Schumpeter, 1934). In fact, application of technologies does
Ramaswammy & Ozcan, 2014). not always create new jobs. Rather, automation of many tasks
by machines, robots, and ICT have destroyed many jobs around
The Global Well-being Index the globe. A recent study by Oxford University faculty reported
that about 47 percent of all job activities can be automated by
The Gallup Organization and Healthways have collaborated to technologies (Frey & Osborne, 2013). We no longer find tele-
develop the Global Well-Being Index (Gallup-Healthways, 2015). phone switchboard operators, road construction workers with
In their report, five well-being criteria are proposed: picks and shovels, farmers planting seeds or harvesting by hand,
and thousands of manual assembly line workers at automobile
plants. Smart leaders must find ways to create new jobs with
(1) Purpose – Like what one does each day and is motivated to
relatively long life cycles as many jobs disappear.
achieve goals.
(3) Smart governments – In the digital age, governments are not
(2) Social – Have nurturing relationships, affection, trust, friend-
the institutions that govern and control citizens. Citizens are
ship.
intelligent with all sorts of information through advanced ICTs.
(3) Financial – Manage comfortable economic life, security for
Smart governments must facilitate citizen participation in co-
future.
creating a safe country with accountability, transparency, rule
(4) Community – Enjoy the community, safety, and pride in the
of law, and social justice that are universally applied. The key for
society.
sustainable economic growth and political stability is the dis-
(5) Physical – Have good health, enough energy for daily activities.
ciplined government which is trusted and connected (Lenovo,
The Global Well-Being Index is based on an evaluation of each
2015).
criterion on three subjective measures: thriving, struggling, and
(4) Smart infrastructure – A smart future requires efficient systems
suffering. We believe the measures should be weighed based
of citizen safety and privacy, public transport management,
on the perceived importance of each criterion as the environ-
electric grid, clean water, environment monitoring, waste man-
mental conditions are different for each individual in the given
agement, security of ICT and the like. With the application
environment.
of closed circuit TV, smart sensors, IoT, cloud systems, and
In addition to the above five criteria, we would like to add an
advanced analytics, cities or communities can develop and
intellectual aspiration as follows:
manage smart infrastructure (Chui et al., 2010). Recently, the
(6) Opportunities to grow – learning, exploring, and experiment-
Smart City Forum, a global organization of CIOs or other lead-
ing.
ers of major cities, was established as a resource to share best
practices in developing and managing smart infrastructure in
In summary, a smart future is a state where each individual cities (Hamblen, 2016).
aspires to be in happiness, good health, doing interesting things that (5) Smart industries – In the digital age, smart industries must be
the person is good at and enjoys financial and physical security, nur- proactive about digital transformation to provide customers
turing and affectionate relationships, living in a nice community, with customers with goods and services that they want or will
and with opportunities to improve oneself intellectually. need (Rogers, 2016). The gradual shift to the service-dominant
logic in advanced economies is forcing business firms to cre-
Requirements of a smart future ate added value by bundling products with unique services.
Also, the new economic model in the digital age allows many
While a smart future is the aspirational target of most indi- new ventures that can secure a very large number of cus-
viduals, organizations, governments, and even countries, it simply tomers with a handful of employees (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp,
6 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8

Airbnb, etc.), by focusing on access rather than ownership of (2) Creating jobs to do right things and new things – The con-
physical capital, agility rather than scale, collaboration over ventional wisdom is to focus on incremental improvement of
independent operations, and no cost (e.g., digital goods) rather productivity by doing the old work more efficiently. Such inno-
than cost minimization (Lee, 2015). They also take advantage vation, while always necessary in organizations, is not sufficient
of technology-empowered new business models such as SNS, to make a quantum leap through radical innovation. The smart
social-commerce, mobile solutions, and self-managing enter- future needs effective new solutions that focus on effective-
prise systems. ness rather than efficiency. Design thinking, 3D technology, and
(6) Smart healthcare and education systems – The two areas that bio-artificial systems convergence (e.g., brain-wave-controlled
will likely see the most drastic changes in the future will be wheelchair, Internet of Brains, IoB, etc.) are good examples of
healthcare and education. Already there are many new break- such innovations.
through medical technologies that fight numerous diseases, (3) Creating new jobs with longer life cycles – There is a gen-
such as genome editing to cut off undesirable cells, and many eral belief that new technologies help create new jobs. Many
converged smart systems that will replace human resources countries struggle to create jobs by pouring huge amounts of the
(e.g., smart devices that read MRI and X-rays, e-healthcare, self- budget for R&D efforts, science and technology commons, sup-
operating automobiles, etc.). Also, massive open online courses port for new venture creation and the like. For creating a smart
(MOOCs) have already revolutionized higher education around future, we need smart innovations that apply new advances
the world. These smart systems will have profound impact and in technologies to create new jobs that have relatively long
implications socially, economically and also personally to peo- life cycles, especially in small and medium enterprises (SMEs),
ple. the engine of job creation, to support the national economy
(7) Smart homes and autos – Two of the aspirational needs of peo- (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Clifton, 2016). Such new digital
ple are affordable, efficient, and comfortable home and car. In age jobs include many knowledge-intensive professional work
the digital age, with the support of smart people, leadership, that support smart systems (e.g., smart infrastructure, factories,
governments, and infrastructure, homes should be equipped public safety, transport, energy, water, waste treatment, health-
with advanced ICT, closed-circuit TV (CCTV), sensors, smart care and education, and the like) and personal service jobs for
security systems, self-learning systems, and the like. The home many professionals (e.g., child care, household care, physical
security system can be controlled by a mobile device and an and sport coaching, beauty and artistic interests, and the like).
IoT system can manage the content of the refrigerator, control (4) Leveraging the aging population – Population in almost
lighting and temperature, operate the smart toilet and the like every country, with the exception of Middle East nations, is
(Lenovo, 2015). Already Google, Apple, and Tesla are working on aging rapidly. This trend is due to several important factors:
smart self-driving cars. These innovations will greatly change drastically decreasing birth rates, the increasing longevity of
the quality of life in a smart future. people due to advanced medical sciences and health care ser-
vices, improved quality of life, and ICT-supported converged
services for well-being. Japan already has about 25 percent of
Innovations that disrupt barriers to the smart future
the population over 60 years of age. The proportion of working
population simply cannot produce enough income and taxes to
Important innovations that we need are those that can disrupt
support retired senior citizens. The smart future must find ways
many barriers to creating a smart future. Already we have a wide
to not only keep senior citizens healthy and engaged in the soci-
variety of new technologies and convergence practices that are
ety but also leverage their accumulated wisdom in producing
available to remove many challenging barriers to a smart future.
value. Many retired knowledge workers can be freelance tem-
Some of those that we have already discussed are: big data and
porary workers in many knowledge-intensive organizations
smart analytics, IoT and networked smart sensors, devices and
(Drucker, 1985; Lee & Olson, 2010).
robots that can learn and share information for decision support,
(5) Sustainability and green management – One of the major
smart biochips and gene editing to eliminate diseases, artificial
threats to the smart future is the deteriorating environment.
intelligence and self-learning machines for pattern recognition to
The global warming trend has caused numerous natural disas-
predict future states, and the like. However, such technological
ters, including the increasing sea level due to the fast melting
tools are not sufficient to disrupt many challenges ahead. We also
permafrost and El Nino-induced droughts, wildfires, floods,
need many social, psychological, and managerial research findings
hurricanes, etc. The world needs continuous and revolution-
to handle complex and ambiguous soft challenges. Some of the
ary innovations to clean up the already damaged environment
innovations that can disrupt the barriers to the desired smart future
and simultaneously take proactive measures to prevent further
are as follows.
environmental disasters. The smart future needs incentives
management. GE has already shown that “green is green” indi-
(1) Matching human talent and jobs – Organizations con- cating that environmental protection projects can be profit
stantly strive to improve productivity through effective generating business for organizations (Lee & Olson, 2010).
human resource management (HRM). Leadership, motivation, (6) Design thinking – We have already discussed the merits of
employee satisfaction, job design, communication, team man- design thinking. The conventional decision-making process
agement, and the like are all related to achieving the best assumes that the problem under study is well defined and
outcome of human resources. Strengths-based HRM has been associated variables are known. Design thinking considers
advocated during the past two decades (Harter, 2007; Rigoni the fluid nature of the decision environment, including the
& Asplund, 2016), in addition to motivation theories, posi- objectives, variables, and relationships (Brown, 2008; Howkins,
tive psychology, and recently Psychological Capital (Luthans, 2013). Also, the main purpose is often what is “good” for the
Youssef-Morgan & Avolio, 2015). People are most productive society at large and humanity, rather than the typical financial
when they use their talents on their jobs. Gallup estimates that outcome. Innovations that can support design thinking more
matching human talent and jobs could be the biggest contrib- easily and widely applied to deal with complex problems will
utor to not only national GDP (several trillion dollars) but also help the process of creating a smart future.
the sense of accomplishment and happiness on the part of the (7) Going beyond the current horizon of our imagination – A
worker (Harter, 2007). The smart future needs such innovation. smart future needs the collective resolve and wisdom of
 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8 7

people to move from “the probable” to “what is imaginable.” of our possibilities, especially in the digital age. To create a smart
There already are advanced technological tools available that future, people must set stretch goals, think beyond the obvious, and
can help predict many future states through smart analytics, work collectively for the good of the entire society.
artificial intelligence (e.g., Facebook’s Deep Face; Google’s
Deep Mind; IBM Watson) and IoT applied devices. Soon, we
References
should be able to see the sound and people’s mood or feelings.
What a smart future needs is to develop the “common good” Adner, P. S. (2001). When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the
through co-creation of shared visions and goals (Lee, 2015; emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 667–688.
Porter & Kramer, 2011; Rigoni & Asplund, 2016). Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2013). Value capture and crowdsourcing. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 38, 457–460.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award –
Conclusion “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma
revisited” ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 497–514.
Innovation is about the actual implementation of new ideas or Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age. New York: Norton.
technologies to create new value in fundamentally different ways Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?
than in the past. In the continuous efforts to confront complex An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Manage-
challenges in the networked global market, innovation is imper- ment Review, 32(3), 946–967.
Canton, J. (2015). Future smart: Managing the game-changing trends that will transform
ative. Innovation is no longer about creating value for an individual your world. Boston: Da Capo Press.
or organization. Rather its ultimate goal is about creating a smart Caroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2011). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and
future which can provide new possibilities to the stakeholders of stakeholder management. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
a society. A smart future is clearly something that people, organi- from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
zations, governments, and countries want to create. As discussed Christensen, C. M. (1992). Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve. Production
earlier, the government of Singapore has the project “Building a and Operations Management, 1(4), 334–357.
Christiansen, C. M., Hall, D., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Know your customers’
Smart Nation” as its top priority. It certainly makes a sense to have
“job to be done”. Harvard Business Review, 94(9), 54–62.
such a national goal, as Singapore is one of the world leaders in per- Christensen, C. M., Rayner, M., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation?
sonal GDP, yet her people have a very low level of happiness and Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.
optimism for the future (Sim, 2015). Israel and South Korea have Chui, M., Loffler, M., & Roberts, R. (2010). The Internet of things. McKinsey. Quarterly,
March.
similar national projects for building “A Creative Economy”. Clifton, J. (2016 August). America’s middle class: Crushed. Small Business Journal,
Most governments that are engaged in creating a smart society 15–17.
tend to emphasize “hardware” requirements for making the project Drucker, P. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 63(3),
67–72.
a success. Such requirements are preferred as they are visible, mea- Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are
surable and easy to celebrate for accomplishments. For example, jobs to computerisation? Oxford, UK: Oxford Martin School.
the following represent the typical national project requirements Gallup. (2016). Gallup helps UN track progress on hunger, financial inclu-
sion. Gallup Blog. Retrieved from www.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/193892/
for building a smart nation. gallup-helps-track-progress-hunger-financial
Gallup-Healthways. (2015). Global well-being index. Franklin, TN: Healthways.
• Research infrastructure development for science, technology, Gilbert, D. (2016). How Xiaomi lost $40 bn: Where it all went wrong for the “Apple
of the East”. International Business Times.
engineering (ICT, biotech, materials, robotics, artificial intelli-
Gobble, M. A. (2014). Charting the innovation ecosystem. Research and Technology
gence, etc.). Management, 57(4), 55–57.
• Development of R&D centers, research commons, and innovation Govindarajan, V. (2016). The three box solution: A strategy for leading innovation.
Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
campuses.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2004). Global strategy and organization. Hoboken,
• Applied research centers for convergence innovation and venture NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
creation. Hamblen, M. (2016). In Atlanta, smart city plans aim for safety. Computerworld. Febru-
• Support of technological small/medium enterprises (SMEs). ary 1, 1–6.
Harter, J. (2007). Engaged workers report twice as much job creation.
• Support of educational programs in science, engineering, and Gallup report.. Retrieved from www.gallup.com/poll/148883/engaged-
mathematics. workers-report-twice-job-creation.aspx
• Government structure, budgets and policies for job creation. Heinemann, G., & Gaiser, C. (2015). Always on and always in touch: The new buying
behaviors. Berlin: Springer.
Howkins, J. (2013). Creative ecologies: Where thinking is a proper job. New Brunswick,
While the above programs are all worthy and positive elements NJ: Transaction Publishing.
for a forward-looking modern society, creating a smart future Kavadias, S., Ladas, K., & Loch, C. (2016). The transformative business model. Harvard
Business Review, 94(10), 91–98.
requires more fundamental cultural fabric where innovation can be Kim, G. H., Trimi, S., & Chung, J. H. (2014). Big data applications in the government
nurtured and harvested for a smart future. More specifically, “soft- sector: A comparative analysis among leading countries. Communications of the
ware” type environmental conditions should be in place. Although ACM, 57(3), 78–85.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
not exclusive, some of the basic software type requirements are as
Business School Press.
follows: Kramer, M. R., & Pfitzer, M. W. (2016). The ecosystem of shared value. Harvard
Business Review, 94(10), 81–89.
• Social justice – rule of law, accountability, and transparency. Lee, S., & Olson, D. (2010). Convergenomics: Strategic innovation in the convergence
era. Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing.
• Culture and environment where creativity is valued. Lee, S. M., Olson, D., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collabo-
• Society that values entrepreneurship and risk taking. ration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5),
• People supporting and participating in collaborative leadership 817–831.
Lee, S. (2015). The age of quality innovation. International Journal of Quality Innova-
and shared goals. tion, 1(1), 1–9.
• Environment where integrity and collective discipline are virtues. Lenovo. (2015). The Internet of things: Shaping the future of connected govern-
• The government is viewed as the facilitator rather than a ruler. ment.. Retrieved from http://marketing.keyinfo.com/acton/attachment/9472/
f-05dd/1/-/-/-/-/Thepercent20Internetpercent20ofpercent20Thingspercent20-
• A culture that advocates change over status quo. percent20Shapingpercent20thepercent20Futurepercent20ofpercent
• A society where job creation is more valued than job taking. 20apercent20Connectedpercent20Governmentpercent20V2.pdf
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C., & Avolio, B. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond.
New York: Oxford University Press.
The smart future is an aspirational goal for most people and March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organi-
society. However, it is not an imaginary future but within the grasp zation Science, 2, 71–87.
8 S.M. Lee, S. Trimi / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 1–8

Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: Routledge.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring. Spring, 29–39. Sim, J. (2015). Beyond 50: Re-imaging Singapore. Singapore: Real Goodbooks.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: The past, Smart Future Initiative. (2016). Website. Retrieved from http://smart-
present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. future.net/1.html.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the Streitz, N. (2015). Citizen-centered design for human and sociable hybrid cities. In
concept. Journal of World Business, 41, 56–65. I. Theona, & D. Charitos (Eds.), Hybrid city 2015 – Data to the people. Proceedings
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, of the 3rd international biannual conference , 17–20
89(1), 62–77. Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy. Boston: MIT Press.
Raisch, S., Birkinsoshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Tapscott, D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New
ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained perfor- York: Portfolio.
mance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695. Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundation of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary
Ramaswammy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2014). The co-creation paradigm. Stanford, CA: Stan- capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspec-
ford University Press. tives, 28(4), 328–352.
Rigoni, B., & Asplund, J. (2016). Strengths-based employee develop- Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide
ment: The business results. Gallup Business Journal,. Retrieved from to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/193499/strengths-based-employee- Press.
development-business-results.aspx Von Hippel, E., Ozawa, S., & De Long, J. (2011). The age of the consumer-innovator.
Rogers, D. L. (2016). The digital transformation playbook. New York: Columbia Uni- MIT Sloan Management Review,. Fall, 27–35.
versity Press. White House Blog. (2016). Computer science for all.. Retrieved from
Schonberger, R. J. (2008). Best practices in lean six sigma process improvement. Hobo- www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
ken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.